peer-to-peerlang (was RE: One Million Processes)

[Thomas Lindgren]

--- Bjorn Gustavsson <bjorn@REDACTED> wrote:
> "Vlad Dumitrescu" <vlad_dumitrescu@REDACTED>
> writes:
> I think it is clear that the distribution should NOT
> be used,
> for several reasons.
> 
> Security: Anyone that is able to connect (has the
> cookie) can do
> any kind of damage to any other connected Erlang
> node. (Through
> spawn/4 or one of the rpc:call functions.)
> 
> Scalability: The distribution was not designed to
> allow that many
> nodes connected to each other.
> 
> Distribution is good for communication between a
> small number of
> hosts that that mutually trust each other.

Indeed. BUT the replacement mechanism (unreliable
distribution, if you will) should be about as
convenient as today, if not more so. Perhaps something
like:

- automatic scalable, unreliable distribution handling
millions of nodes that may join or leave at any time

- transparent message passing among the nodes

- some sort of directory (or directories) for the
whole thing

- some way to manage code

- again, security/trust issues

and "whatever more is needed". Target audience: p2p
developers.

Best,
Thomas


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com