[almighty] Major Architectural Question for the Build

[Pete Muir]

Hi Tomas,

Sorry for the slow reply!


On 31 October 2016 at 10:57, Tomas Nozicka <tnozicka at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Pete,
>
> (see inline)
>
> On Thu, 2016-10-27 at 13:15 -0400, Pete Muir wrote:
>> This reminded me of the VS Code/LSP architecture. In this
>> architecture there are a number of proceses running:
>>
>> 1) The VS Code tool
>> 2) A server which can control and talk to any LSP implementation via
>> a socket or REST or other transport protocol
>> 3) The LSP implementation(s) written in the language of choice,
>> talking a JSON protocol
> I like the separation and implementation language independence.
>
>>
>> This is closest to the the Consumer model that Michael describes, but
>> I think we could also look at also being able to run the plugin (and
>> the thing it connects to) on our servers, but using transports other
>> than HTTP (e.g. sockets).
> I am not opposing the idea, but would you mind laying out some story
> why it would be useful?
>
> From my point of view vendors can run such service on OpenShift Online
> or any other server (or cloud).
>
> Even we were (are) planing to run OSBP on different server using
> HTTPS.
>
> I don't see the use case for supporting sockets (or similar mechanisms)
> especially when Almighty will be running in the cloud; if such
> mechanism could even work there.

As long as you are thinking carefully about all impacts of transport
choice (performance, scalability, security spring to mind) then I
think you are making the right choice - my comment was more idle
speculation.

>
>>
>> I don't think allowing people to write scripts that execute inside
>> our processes is a good idea.
> +1
>
>
> Regards,
> Tomas