On 05/09/2015 04:23 PM, Krishnan Parthasarathi wrote:
Oh nice, I might have missed the mails. Do you mind sharing the plan for
4.0? Any reason why you guys do not want to continue glusterd as
translator model?
I don't understand why we are using the translator model in the first place.
I guess it was to reuse rpc code. You should be able to shed more light here.
Even I am not sure :-). It was a translator by the time I got in.
A quick google search with "glusterd 2.0 gluster-users", gave me this
http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/2014-September/018639.html.
Interestingly you asked us to consider AFR/NSR for distributed configuration
management, which lead to http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2014-November/042944.html
This proposal didn't go in the expected direction.
I don't want to get into "why not use translators" now. We are currently heading in the
direction visible in the above threads. If glusterd can't be a translator anymore, so be it.
Kaushal's response gave the answers I was looking for. We should
probably discuss it more once you guys come up with the interface CLI
handling code needs to follow. I was thinking it would be great if you
come up with a model where the handler code will be separate from the
code of glusterd, which is what you guys seem to be targeting.
Translator model is one way of achieving it, I personally love it on the
FS side, that is why I was curious why it was not used. But any other
way where the above requirements are met is welcome.
Really excited to see what will come up :-).
Pranith
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
