Re: ForCES Protocol Implementation Issues

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:20:37 -0400, Joel M. Halpern 
<[email protected]> wrote:

>If we want the FEState to be the way that a cE administratively
>disables and FE, then we would need to make a larger change.  When I
>drafted the FEState component, my expectation was that
>administratively disable would reflect non-Forces interaction, such
>as a "disable" CLI command.
>Given that the other two values (operationally disabled and
>operationally enabled) can not be used as the value in a set
>operation, I think that to change this we would have to create two
>separate variables, a read-write admin-status and a read-only
>operation-status.  (I thought we had that at one point and decided
>not to keep it, but I could be confused.)
>

So, is there any good solution about "CE starts a FE or stop it" in current time ?
Or you want to charge the draft?


>For every table (array) in a Forces Object there is a properties
>object (accessible via the protocol) which includes the first free
>table entry, as well as the last used table entry.  So the
>information the CE needs is always available.
>In fact, since the CE generally created the table, and created the
>entries, it is anticipated that the CE will normally have a mirror
>copy with any annotation information it wants, obviating the need to
>query these fields.
>

What you mean is that I can get the information about which row is free 
without getting all the contents of a table to find the index of free rows?

If so, when i want to add some things to a table, I must still get some data at 
first. Isn't it a complicated thing?

Because I try to implement Failover, I can not think that Backup CEs have the 
mirror copy of all FEs.


Thanks a lot.

>Yours,
>Joel
>