[Agendaware-dev-server] Re: Doc

[zack <za...@th...>]

Hey Agyani.

Thanks for the email.  Comments inline.

zl


Agyani wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>  
> 
> Tests are under way with the server. It has started to accept connection 
> on port 7007 and is presently printing every input from the client on 
> the stdout. I am working to make the ssl stuff running.
> 
>  



Shoot me the code for that when you can.  If all you have so far is 
non-ssl, I'll start with that.


> 
> Gone through the doc, but I have not gone through the rfc mentioned 
> (will try to go through). Your comments were appropriate for the 
> iCalendar interface as nothing can be said without understanding the 
> whole protocol.
> 
>  
> 
> I agree with Shane, we do require loadbalancing functionality, but we 
> can have a load balancer built as a standalone application that can 
> provide loadbalancing for the servers and not to integrate this feature 
> in the server itself. This proposed loadbalancer can  have a config file 
> which stores the information for available servers and then 
> distributes incoming connection to them. If we are able to make the 
> loadbalancer totally abstract form the underling server then this can be 
> used with any other server


An easy way to do this would be when logging into a server (you could 
have primmary and secondary configged on the client) the server then 
assigns you a server to use throughout the session.  This option still 
leaves the database server as a single point of failure though, and you 
couldn't really run a db on each server as you would still have to have 
a single database.  So, the database would have to be clustered (beowolf 
  maybe?).  If you have to set up a clustered database, it might be 
worthwhile looking into what it would take to make the agenda server 
cluster aware.  So, I guess we need to look at what is possible, and 
what level of redundancy/load balancing it really gives us.


> 
>  
> 
> For connection distribution between servers for different functionality 
> we can bind the loadbalancer's socket to all the addresses of the 
> host(this may not be a good idea) and for each incoming connection the 
> loadbalancer checks the address and distributes accordingly.
> 
> The proposed server is going to have a config file having various config 
> information i.e port,ip, log etc. so to implement the above won't be a 
> problem.
> 
>  
> 
> XML parsing is mostly done on document basis i.e the whole document is 
> constructed and send for parsing as we require all the information in 
> the document before we can act on it. So it would be better if we lean 
> toward the document way.
> 


Sounds like DOM is the way to go.


>  
> 
> I agree the client should have the functionality to do all his work 
> offline and when he wants to update the server he simply connects to the 
> server and updates/sends the information.
> 
>  
> 
> Some message archiving features could also be good.
> 


Good.  I think any archiving should be done on the server.


>  
> 
> The proposed server will be more towards c++ then c, this gives us the 
> upper hand in implementing class modularity and abstraction. Taking the 
> case of db, the class that will provide database access will have a std 
> set of methods for getting,setting,updating and retrieving information 
> from the db. These std set of methods will be defined in a abstract 
> database class having all pure virtual methods. Now the question of 
> using other databases can be answered easily, to make the server use a 
> new database the implementar has to extend the base class and provide 
> the rest of the functionality, recompile the server and you have it 
> working. I propose some thing similar to JDBC classes and their methods.
> 
>  
> 
> I don't have a static IP so my box can't be used as a server. You can 
> have linux setup on you system and use it as the server and client both. 
> I will be uploading all the information for compiling,configuring and 
> running the server and the sql to setup the db with the release. Also 
> thinking of the db structure and will come up with some tables and views 
> asap.
> 


Very cool.


>  
> 
> Well that's it, just got your new mail Re: LDAP will reply shortly.
> 
> You mentioned you needed help on the client, what kind of ?
> 


Yeah, right now, I am working on it, and one other is joining, Sandeep. 
  We'll be doing the client, unless someone else wants to help.


> Has every body joined the mailing list ?
> 


Everyone who has commited to the project is on the mailing lists.  There 
are still a couple of people who have emailed me, but I am not sure they 
are commited.


>  
> 
> rahul
>