Re: [DotGNU]Our blindspot - (was: Sun likely to join Web services group)

[Gopal.V]

If memory serves me right, John wrote:
> 
> Possibly both. The description language seems to be built to the
> assumption of a centralized registry. My preference: decentralize the
> directory, leave the language be. If, however, the language assumptions
> prevent discovery decentralization, then one must modify the UDDI
> language. That make sense?
        The first thing we planned for DotGNU was a P2P service registry,
based on the FreeNet idea...... which meant a fork of FreeNet which
gives us an enormous existing network. With a heirarchical naming
system, we could literally use the FreeNet for this purpose. 

        But , AFAIK almost all universities & colleges (and corporate
offices) block FreeNet nodes. Morover there is *no* controlling 
authority for freenet. So it does not prevent M$ from mirroring
"gnu_savannah_login.gnu" to "http://www.msdn.com/login.asmx"; .

        So will a distributed LDAP (model) server do ?. With multiple 
top levels ,ie your host has settings for each TLD ie "gnu.*" redirects
to an IP, "perl.*"...........we may even imitate the newsgroup
style .....(comp.* style) and make data into standard DTD's.

        Anyway, I don't have much expertise in network programming...so
it's out of bounds for me anyway.....

Gopal.V
-- 
 The difference between insanity and genius is only measured by success
 //===<=>===\\
|| GNU RULEZ ||
 \\===<=>===//