Ray Ozzie correctly points out that Groove has solved the serverless coordination problem, including the subnet splitting problem. This is a notable oversight on my part, all the more so as Ray and I go back together 20 years. I was on the Groove board for many years and my Groove stock will ultimately benefit various non-profits I am associated with. So, mea culpa. I've been very focused on open source and working on Chandler. Groove's accomplishment in the peer-to-peer realm is significant.
Posted by mitch@osafoundation.org at August 04, 2004 04:14 PMThis is a good acknowledgement, but you also overlooked the entire field of Process Group Communication systems as exemplified by http://www.cs.cornell.edu/Info/Projects/Ensemble and http://www.spread.org. Spread even already has Python bindings; see http://www.python.org/other/spread.
To be quite honest, it's been rather frustrating to watch the Chandler development process as it seems to be developing virtually everything other than the GUI framework from first principles rather than leveraging the work that's being done by other organizations, particularly with respect to RDF storage and query and reliable decentralized networking. I can't help but think that a good RQL implementation on top of e4Graph, Secure Spread for networking, and KeyNote for trust management would have freed the team up to have made even more progress than it has, by enabling them to focus on application-level issues rather than nitty-gritty infrastructure.
But please take that with a grain of salt; I've been doing software long enough to know how easy it is for folks like me to be back-seat drivers. :-)
Posted by: Paul Snively at August 6, 2004 04:25 PM
Paul seems to be a master of diplomatic language.
Posted by: DaniGro at August 9, 2004 07:17 AM