Re: [DotGNU]Network SEE architecture, v2

[Chris Smith]

> http://csserver.evansville.edu/~sc87/see-arch.txt

I read this with interest.

This post is an off-the-top-of-my-head comparison of the SEE and the VRS.

I can't get it out of my head that the SEE and VRS are very similar beasts:

                              SEE      VRS
Accepts requests for           Y        Y
webservices from 'users'

Accepts request for            Y        Y
webservices from other
nodes

Runs Webservices               Y        Y

Provides a secure exec         Y        Y
environment 

Distributes resources          N        Y
uniformly across the
cluster

Supports multiple              Y        Y
protocols/transports

Supports the addition of       Y        Y
new protocols/transports

Requires identification        Y        Y


... There are more pluses for the SEE and minuses for the VRS and vice-versa 
I'm sure, but this is just off the top of my head :o)

Basically, a single node in a VRS looks like a SEE.  How executables/data is 
stored is very much 'local' in the true SEE sense, and distributed in the VRS 
sense.  How/where data is stored is handled by the Resource Manager of the 
VRS and will be entirely local if the VRS contains a single node.
I see no reason why an 'equivelent' Resource Manager could not be substituted 
for the VRS default to provide the entirely local storage and 
forward-to-another-SEE-node behaviour required by the true SEE.

How someone adds 'echo servers' to the VRS and requests access to webservices 
stored in the VRS has not been identified.