« Return to Thread: clearinghouses (or not)
Re: clearinghouses (or not)
by John Wroclawski
::
Rate this Message:
At 11:08 PM -0400 4/16/09, David Irwin wrote:
>
>This is a point that underlies Orca's approach----we put nearly all of
>the discussed functionality (in some form) in our Clearinghouse
>because we can always have multiple Clearinghouses or combine AMs with
>their own Clearinghouse (so the AM takes on its functions) in
>different ways to effectively produce a different "bundle" of
>functions. Taking the opposite approach---by putting few functions in
>a Clearinghouse initially---may make composing/bundling these
>functions in different ways later on more difficult.
>
>-David
Hi David,
I don't quite understand this argument.
It seems to me there are three separate ideas tied up in the concept
of a clearinghouse as most people are using the word:
1) decoupling - the ability to "disconnect" some functions from the
AM and move them to somewhere else.
2) centralization - the provision of those functions for multiple AMs
in a centralized manner, at one point in the system, rather than in a
distributed way.
3) bundling - tying together several functions in one place.
I agree that the "decoupling" idea is helpful to making composition
or bundling of functions in different ways later on easier. But the
assumptions about centralization and bundling that are also implied
in the current definition seem to work in the opposite direction.
I think what you're saying is that your vision of a clearinghouse is
heavily centered on the decoupling goal, and not so much on the
others - you argue that once functions are decoupled you can easily
move them around, and although you don't mention debundling different
functions into different places, perhaps you're considering it. But
I'm not sure that this definition is completely consistent with how
others are thinking about the word. Am I missing something?
Thanks,
John
_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg
>
>This is a point that underlies Orca's approach----we put nearly all of
>the discussed functionality (in some form) in our Clearinghouse
>because we can always have multiple Clearinghouses or combine AMs with
>their own Clearinghouse (so the AM takes on its functions) in
>different ways to effectively produce a different "bundle" of
>functions. Taking the opposite approach---by putting few functions in
>a Clearinghouse initially---may make composing/bundling these
>functions in different ways later on more difficult.
>
>-David
Hi David,
I don't quite understand this argument.
It seems to me there are three separate ideas tied up in the concept
of a clearinghouse as most people are using the word:
1) decoupling - the ability to "disconnect" some functions from the
AM and move them to somewhere else.
2) centralization - the provision of those functions for multiple AMs
in a centralized manner, at one point in the system, rather than in a
distributed way.
3) bundling - tying together several functions in one place.
I agree that the "decoupling" idea is helpful to making composition
or bundling of functions in different ways later on easier. But the
assumptions about centralization and bundling that are also implied
in the current definition seem to work in the opposite direction.
I think what you're saying is that your vision of a clearinghouse is
heavily centered on the decoupling goal, and not so much on the
others - you argue that once functions are decoupled you can easily
move them around, and although you don't mention debundling different
functions into different places, perhaps you're considering it. But
I'm not sure that this definition is completely consistent with how
others are thinking about the word. Am I missing something?
Thanks,
John
_______________________________________________
control-wg mailing list
control-wg@...
http://lists.geni.net/mailman/listinfo/control-wg
« Return to Thread: clearinghouses (or not)
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
