Re: Design question
- From: Droopy <droopytoonnospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Jan 2006 15:21:27 GMT
"Vadym Stetsyak" <vadym_s@xxxxxxx> wrote in
news:ei4lpCSHGHA.3116@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> IMO the good approach is to inroduce server, in which clients will
> "register" or connect.
> Server will have the list of connections ( machines table ).
>
> Then you send data to the server, and server routes it to the clients
> that are present in the connection list.
>
> If you want design a failover mechanism then 1 server will be not
> enough.
>
This is the way I want to do it.
But the "consumers" of my application don't like the server approach for 2
reasons :
1) if only 1 server = single point of failure
2) performance is lower (because message is not sent directly)
Thanks a lot for your answer.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Design question
- From: Vadym Stetsyak
- Re: Design question
- References:
- Design question
- From: Droopy
- Re: Design question
- From: Vadym Stetsyak
- Design question
- Prev by Date: Re: Design question
- Next by Date: Re: Design question
- Previous by thread: Re: Design question
- Next by thread: Re: Design question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|