31–40 of 56 posts
"This site uses features not available in older browsers." It is difficult to express the degree of my frustration with C2 being rewritten from a gunmetal HTML page that worked everywhere into an inaccessible heavyweight SPA mess with a frankly bizarre UI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Primary problem: Distribute work on heterogenous data across a cluster of heterogenous processes. Add new processes (either additional workers or additional capabilities) by attaching them to the existing shared tuple space. Add new data by wrapping it into a tuple and tossing it into the pile. Add a processor for the new data by having it search for a pattern that picks up the new tuple. Similar concept behind messa…
> Add new data by wrapping it into a tuple and tossing it into the pile In David Gelernter's original work, it's not just data. In Linda, it's possible to put Objects in, which are little executable (`eval` in Linda terms) which a processor can manipulate through whatever interface the tuple type exposes.
Also, what's to stop another processor "finding" the Object before the intended recipient?
"This site uses features not available in older browsers." It is difficult to express the degree of my frustration with C2 being rewritten from a gunmetal HTML page that worked everywhere into an inaccessible heavyweight SPA mess with a frankly bizarre UI.
Is C2 doing some sort of A-B testing? Because when I go to the link I see the exact same interface that I have seen there for the past quarter century or so!
If you don't follow any links (or you open them in new tabs) it does pretty much look like it always has.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Add new data by wrapping it into a tuple and tossing it into the pile In David Gelernter's original work, it's not just data. In Linda, it's possible to put Objects in, which are little executable (`eval` in Linda terms) which a processor can manipulate through whatever interface the tuple type exposes.
That does not sound very secure. Also, what's to stop another processor "finding" the Object before the intended recipient?
2. In TupleWorld, there's no concept of "the" intended recipient. The tuple's properties determine what kind of processor would match. If those properties happen to only match a single processor, you'd get that 1:1 mapping you want, but that's missing the point of tuple spaces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That does not sound very secure. Also, what's to stop another processor "finding" the Object before the intended recipient?
1. Just bare like that, it's not. Unless, of course, the object requires a key to allow a processor to execute it. See for example Capability-Based Access Control 2. In TupleWorld, there's no concept of "the" intended recipient. The tuple's properties determine what kind of processor would match. If those properties happen to only match a single processor, you'd get that 1:1 mapping you want, but that's missing the p…
Perhaps this is attempting to solve a problem I've not come across. While it sounds interesting, I'm not sure I see the benefit? (Probably me just being short-sighted).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Just bare like that, it's not. Unless, of course, the object requires a key to allow a processor to execute it. See for example Capability-Based Access Control 2. In TupleWorld, there's no concept of "the" intended recipient. The tuple's properties determine what kind of processor would match. If those properties happen to only match a single processor, you'd get that 1:1 mapping you want, but that's missing the p…
Just coordinating the 1:1 mapping I might want is fraught with challenges. Network delays, out-of-order execution, stampeding herd situations, poison objects, processors crashing (or being rebooted) at random times... I'm not seeing the benefit of a "bag" of objects to be processed whenever by whoever or whatever. Perhaps this is attempting to solve a problem I've not come across. While it sounds interesting, I'm not…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just coordinating the 1:1 mapping I might want is fraught with challenges. Network delays, out-of-order execution, stampeding herd situations, poison objects, processors crashing (or being rebooted) at random times... I'm not seeing the benefit of a "bag" of objects to be processed whenever by whoever or whatever. Perhaps this is attempting to solve a problem I've not come across. While it sounds interesting, I'm not…
It's a way of doing massively parallel computations in a scatter/gather system. I suggest looking up the paper "Linda in Context. I'd provide a link but I'm on my phone.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/63334.63337 (free access)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Just bare like that, it's not. Unless, of course, the object requires a key to allow a processor to execute it. See for example Capability-Based Access Control 2. In TupleWorld, there's no concept of "the" intended recipient. The tuple's properties determine what kind of processor would match. If those properties happen to only match a single processor, you'd get that 1:1 mapping you want, but that's missing the p…
Just coordinating the 1:1 mapping I might want is fraught with challenges. Network delays, out-of-order execution, stampeding herd situations, poison objects, processors crashing (or being rebooted) at random times... I'm not seeing the benefit of a "bag" of objects to be processed whenever by whoever or whatever. Perhaps this is attempting to solve a problem I've not come across. While it sounds interesting, I'm not…