Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!ken
From: ken@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Ken Birman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.isis
Subject: Re: A technical question
Keywords: Bypass protocols
Message-ID: <35596@cornell.UUCP>
Date: 31 Dec 89 01:45:25 GMT
References: <35521@cornell.UUCP> <35593@cornell.UUCP>
Sender: nobody@cornell.UUCP
Reply-To: ken@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (Ken Birman)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY
Lines: 28

In article <35593@cornell.UUCP> wood@cs.cornell.edu (Mark D. Wood) writes:
>
>The proposed change to the abcast protocol could present some problems
>for Meta...
>
>In particular, when a sensor perceives that one or more conditions are
>satisfied, it sends a broadcast to the list of addresses {S,a,b,...}
>where S is the sensor process group (useful if the sensor is
>replicated) and {a,b,...} are the addresses of the processes (not
>groups) who are being notified....

Actually, the proposed change won't affect these types of abcast's:
they will still go by the "slow" route and will still be ordered
w.r.t. one another.

Say that a multicast is addressed to group G if G is its _only_ dest,
and that it is addressed to group * if it has any other sort of dest
(including a mixture of groups and processes, just processes, etc).

The proposal is that abcasts with the same group address in this
sense will be ordered wrt each other, but not wrt abcasts to other
addresses.

Meta seems to fall entirely within group '*'.

(However, '*' goes by a slow route...)

Ken