|
|
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ Example ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
## The IRC bots
|
|
|
|
|
|
-### Eggdrop Bot TCL plugin Version
|
|
|
+### Eggdrop Bot TCL plugin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Configuration from a webserver
|
|
|
XML
|
|
|
@@ -29,9 +29,44 @@ provides the following commands on the messaging service:
|
|
|
Commands to publish
|
|
|
provides the following commands on the messaging service:
|
|
|
|
|
|
-## Communication Backbone with a Messaging Service
|
|
|
+## Messaging Service
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every client connects to a messaging service where they can interact
|
|
|
-with a command and control server program.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
+with a command and control server program. It is the communication
|
|
|
+backbone. So to say, it's the transport of the messages with
|
|
|
+which the programs interact. Let's say 'Program message transport' is a
|
|
|
+synonym.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+As a future (late 2017?) underlying message transport I chose NATS from Apcera.
|
|
|
+https://nats.io
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+At the very moment (since 2014), the whole message transport is done via
|
|
|
+a ruby server that works together with a SSH-Server to send
|
|
|
+and receive messages. It is nicely working but there we have
|
|
|
+a single point of failure. There is only one Server that all
|
|
|
+clients have to connect to. We need this more scalable and
|
|
|
+failsafe.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Have a look at the quakeworld community. We provide and use this IRC
|
|
|
+broadcasting service now for over a decade. It sure works,
|
|
|
+but this community is a golden nugget in comparison to many other
|
|
|
+communities. It deserves an even better working service which
|
|
|
+they can expand and code on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+### Resiliency of program message transport
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Communities change and people come and go. So do servers and all
|
|
|
+those moving parts of a networked program. Lets make it more resilient.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+You can join the whole network by adding a cluster node to the
|
|
|
+messaging service. This would then extend the messaging service
|
|
|
+to make it more resilient. This also means, the communication between
|
|
|
+all clients would be working in all those conditions when a server
|
|
|
+fails. The clients would still find a messaging server inside
|
|
|
+the cluster. See https://nats.io for clustered NATS.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Even more, lets say, if the whole NATS portion of the network fails, clients
|
|
|
+would still need to be able to connect to the network. So, we could - in
|
|
|
+some unknown future - even add Amazon Web Services Simple Queuing Service (SQS)
|
|
|
+to this network by coding a gateway from NATS to SQS. But that's future talk
|
|
|
+for something that was never meant THIS big. ;-) Let's dream.
|
Klumpp, Paul-Dieter