Mike McGrath wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Michael DeHaan wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
>
>> So I'm working on a language.xml document. I'm referencing rfc2119 for
>> some def's but I'm not sure what to do about others.
>>
>> How would the people on this list define the following?
>>
>> client:
>>
>>
>>
> Funny :)
>
> This is unfortunately an overloaded phrase. A client can be an initiator
> of a network connection or a managed node". Aka "an XMLRPC client"
could
> be something the server uses to talk to a "client".
>
> Clients can also host servers, in the case of them running daemons to
> allow access by clients (and by clients, I mean servers).
>
>
We're lucky enough that we can define it to be exactly what we mean it to
be. In my case I'd intended on client to be a piece of software that
connects to a service. Which reminds me.... We need another def for what
a 'service' is.
Ahwell, no one said it'd be easy :)
Yeah, the software definition makes more sense than calling a
managed-machine a client. That's fair.
Command line client, web client, etc.
It is "client/server" in terms of client server architecture, but not
doesn't mean the managed piece is the "client", in many cases,
the managed thing is a server, and the server (machine) managing them is
a client.
Dr. Seuss, here we come! :)
> This is why Func choose "overlord" and "minion".
>
>
>
>
>> server:
>>
>>
> Ditto :)
>
>> host:
>>
>>
>>
> Any machine. Not a meaningful phrase for this reason in most cases.
>
>
Well, hosts and hardware are very different. Especially in a virtualized
space.
Typically we throw around 'physical machine' and 'virtual machine', or
occasionally 'bare-metal' if it isn't installed yet.
Yeah, 'host' in the relationship with 'guest' means something.
"Managed hosts" does not mean so much, as some people use the word
"host" to mean the OS that is running the software.
To remove all confusion, perhaps, "physical host", "virtual guest" ?
And generically that's "system"?
> Also, a carrier of a parasite.
>
>
>> end user:
>>
>>
> A user who doesn't hack on the code but still uses an application. OR: A
> customer of a developer/IT person.
>
>
I fit that description as someone who doesn't hack on code but does
maintain the infrastructure.
Right. As I write systems management software, admins are my end-users.
It complicates things.
Your end users are not my end users.
Maybe we just have "users".
Words are fun.
>> admin:
>>
>>
> Someone who manages an application or a set of systems, typically with
> elevated rights or abilities.
>
>
>
>> Its been surprisingly difficult to come up with some so I thought I'd just
>> drop by the list and see what others thought.
>>
>>
>>
> Isn't this already defined somewhere by some other RFC/Spec? No?
>
>
If it was I couldn't find it, though I'm hoping someone will reply with a
link that will just ease all my pains :)
Hopefully!
-Mike
_______________________________________________
csi-devel mailing list
csi-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/csi-devel