From 01565e921fe8fca9f4117330f1966c4454cae087 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Olof-Joachim Frahm Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 22:47:25 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Add integration post. --- integration.post | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+) create mode 100644 integration.post diff --git a/integration.post b/integration.post new file mode 100644 index 0000000..73749cc --- /dev/null +++ b/integration.post @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +;;;;; +title: Integrated tools +date: 2014-11-27 21:30:21 +format: md +;;;;; + +Continuing that thought, I feel that the tools we use are very much +disconnected from each other. Of course that is the basic tennet, tools which +do one thing well. However, tools serve a specific purpose, which in itself +can be characterised as providing a specific service. It seems strange that +basically the only widely applicable way to connect very different tools is the +shell, respectively calling out to other programs. + +I would argue that using some another paradigms could rather help to make the +interplay between services in this sense much easier. For example, if we were +to use not only a message bus, line in Plan9, but also a shared blackboard-like +database to exchange messages in a common format, then having different daemons +react on state changes would be much easier. + +Of course, this would already be possible if the one point, a common exchange +format, was satisfied. In that case, using file system notifications together +with files, pipes, fifos etc. would probably be enough to have largely the same +system, but based on the file system abstraction. -- 1.7.10.4