Hi Jason,

For a compute farm you maybe you'd only need one level of access? I 
suppose it's not as much of a general concurrency solution.

Regards,
Zulq.

Jason Johnson wrote:
> This is something that would be possible with the concurrency solution
> I was thinking about.  The Erlang methodology for Nodes joining a
> group is pretty simplistic, I would would want something more secure
> with perhaps more levels of access (e.g. this access level is only
> permitted to send these specific messages) with the "handshake" based
> on public/private key cryptography.
> 
> The rest would have to be built on top of this infrastructure, but I
> think this would be a good foundation to start from.
> 
> On 10/22/07, Zulq Alam <me at zulq.net> wrote:
>> I've been reading some of the many posts on concurrency and multi-core
>> processors. As always, a very interesting discussion.
>>
>> It got me thinking it would be cool if there was a generic Squeak
>> compute farm which you could utilize from any Squeak image. Just write
>> some code in a map/reduce fashion and send some jobs to the farm.
>>
>> Perhaps running in spare cycles on the desktop and or dedicated servers.
>> Although I'm not sure how the latter could be funded.
>>
>> We'd need to work out how to manage the code, job scheduling, security,
>> etc.  I doubt it would be easy but it may be very rewarding. Perhaps
>> someone has looked at something like this already?
>>
>> It feels like there's an interesting idea in there somewhere. A language
>> extension that gives everyone access to a super computer.
>>
>> I understand that if everyone is using the same super computer, it
>> ceases to be super but i doubt this would be the case.
>>
>> Let me know what you think.
>>
>> Zulq.
>>
>>
>>
> 
>