[cdt-dev] RE: [ptp-dev] Remote capabilities

[Doug Schaefer <DSchaefer@xxxxxxx>]

How soon the world forgets about life under NFS...

Doug Schaefer, QNX Software Systems
Eclipse CDT Project Lead, Tools PMC Member


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ptp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ptp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Chris Recoskie
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 9:49 AM
> To: Parallel Tools Platform general developers; cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ptp-dev] Remote capabilities
> 
> Cross posting to cdt-dev...
> 
> The problem I have with EFS for this type of solution is that it serves up
> the files to the local system, and nothing else.  I have not looked at EFS
> in detail, but I'm guessing (perhaps naively) that just to do a dependency
> calculation you'd have to serve every file over the wire in order to do a
> timestamp check because I don't think it discriminates about what info
> about the file it sends over the wire.  It's much more network efficient
> to
> have an agent running on the remote server that is in charge of the build
> logic.  Then again this might be all up to the implementation of the EFS
> interfaces to handle.
> 
> ===========================
> 
> Chris Recoskie
> Team Lead, IBM CDT Team
> IBM Toronto
> http://www.eclipse.org/cdt
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   From:   Tianchao Li <lit@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
>   To:     Parallel Tools Platform general developers <ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
>   Date:   28/11/2006 04:28 PM
> 
>   Subject Re: [ptp-dev] Remote capabilities
>   :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am always seeing EFS as the easiest way to enable CDT with a remote
> project, and my patch to CDT as a prototype has demonstrated this.
> However, since this approach is different from the available ways that
> has been undertaken by the participating companies of CDT, they does not
> seem to favor this measure.
> However, although the remote build function has been talked about for a
> long time by the CDT people, I have not seen any code contributions in
> this area. Again, it seems to be a decision we should make - should we
> contribute a full solution to CDT or keep waiting ...
> 
> Cheers,
> Tianchao
> 
> 
> Craig Rasmussen wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 27, 2006, at 11:47 AM, Craig Rasmussen wrote:
> >
> >> I've finished draft of a requirements document for remote
> >> capabilities in PTP.  If I can, I'll put it up on the wiki today.
> >>
> >
> > I've added a start to the remote requirements to the wiki.  However,
> > now the requirements need to integrated with the other remote services
> > documents.  In particular, requirements-like text currently located
> > elsewhere should to be moved to the requirements document before it is
> > finished (hah, wikis are never finished).
> >
> > Then the evaluation of existing remote services (e.g., RSE) needs to
> > be updated before we can reevaluate our remote plans and start a design.
> >
> > By the way, for those interested in a higher-level announcement group
> > distinct from the dev group, bug Greg to create one :-)
> >
> > Tianchao, are you still confident in your assessment that the EFS
> > should be used for CDT remote builds?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Craig
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ptp-dev mailing list
> > ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ptp-dev
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ptp-dev mailing list
> ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ptp-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ptp-dev mailing list
> ptp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ptp-dev