[Dev] gui instance host question

[Jamie Bullock]

On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 14:02 +0200, Henrik Frisk wrote:

> I think we should discuss this more. I think it would be useful to be
> able to have multiple bridges per IH. We also have a slight terminology
> problem (perhaps the confusion in this thread is evidence of that?) with
> the IH proxy that doesn't actually host any instances, only a
> bridge. What about letting the bridge encompass the proxy functionality?
> This is obviously purely conceptual, nothing in the implementation
> really has to change.

I think it depends on whose perspective you look at it from. From the
point-of-view of a module host, or an end-user, a slave IH *behaves* in
exactly the same way as a standalone IH. The IH client (e.g. Pd) doesn't
know (or care) whether its talking to a master or slave. The only
difference is where the data gets saved to, and if we're in 'online
mode' this will be at db.integralive.org, so again the master/slave
status is transparent.


However, I take your point about terminology, maybe 'Instance Host' is
too specific a name -- especially if it isn't even accurate for the
slave IH's. Perhaps we should talk about the 'Integra Server', where a
'Master Integra Server' (MIS) contains an 'Instance Host' (IH) and
(optionally) a 'Bridge Host' (BH) and a 'Slave Integra Server' (SIS)
contains only a 'Bridge Host'?

Server configuration: MIS/IH/BH

hm..

-j

-- 
www.postlude.co.uk
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamiebullock