Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Gene Kan & Mike Clary on Sun's Infrasearch Buy

Expand Messages
  • Lindsey Smith
    Very interesting reading over at O Reilly s OpenP2P.com in this interview of Gene Kan & Mike Clary on Sun s acquisition of Infrasearch. Sheds (first?) real
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 21 2:17 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Very interesting reading over at O'Reilly's OpenP2P.com in this interview of
      Gene Kan & Mike Clary on Sun's acquisition of Infrasearch. Sheds (first?)
      real light on what Infrasearch has been up to and what JXTA will be about.
      Also has gratuitous bagging on the "Intel working group".


    • Gregory Alan Bolcer
      Lindsey Smith pointer to Gene Kan who writes: http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2001/03/19/kan_clary.html ... There is nothing inherent in HTTP, WebDAV, SOAP,
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 21 4:04 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Lindsey Smith pointer to Gene Kan who writes:

        > The basic idea is that Infrasearch is able to effectively
        > turn all of the computers on a network into a collective
        > brain, if you will, in disseminating the information that is
        > available on each of those computers. And that's
        > something that's really unique when compared to the
        > World Wide Web. On the Web, the hosts of
        > information are in fact treated as second-class citizens
        > when it comes to answering requests based upon the
        > information that is located on each Web host.

        There is nothing inherent in HTTP, WebDAV, SOAP, or XML that is
        essentially client-server. It just so happens that the most widely
        deployed software architecture of the Web is client-server, but that
        doesn't mean that it can't be peer to peer also. If the host
        of the information is a Web server running on a "client", it's
        not a second class citizen--it's a first class Web server. Even
        more desirable is if you make that Web server not just a server,
        but a writer/service. You use existing Web protocols to provide
        a two-way, writable, first-class citizen.

        > And by
        > that I mean that the information that is residing on each
        > host must first be interpreted by a crawler and so on
        > before any kind of questions can be answered about
        > that information.

        There's a difference between Web crawling and Web (content) indexing.
        This again is describing a traditional, centralized Web search engine. There's
        no reason why you can't decentralize the indexing. In fact, one of the
        best approaches is to take the best p2p search techniques and add
        in decentralized indexing--making every peer a search engine indexer.
        Our p2p search consists of pushing metadata to a central repository where that
        metadata is, in addition to the Napsteresque filename metadata, indexed
        keywords and search criteria. It's combined Web search with p2p search.

        > That doesn't work in a peer-to-peer world, for at least
        > two reasons. The first is that peer networks are
        > extremely transient
        You tie in the Web server with a dynamic naming service such that
        any "client" or peer can use a URI to determine whether or not
        that Web server is running and (even better) the name to that Web
        server is fixed regardless of if it's at work behind a firewall, at
        home on a DSL connection, or on the road using a dialup. So, put a check
        next to transient column.

        > and the information available on
        > those networks is constantly changing — not only
        > because the computers are appearing and disappearing
        > all of the time, but because the information itself is
        > changing at a much more rapid rate.

        Push the metadata up a) every time it reconnects to the network
        (either automatically or by choice), and/or b) every time it
        changes through any file/resource operation. Put a check next
        to the rapidly changing and disappearing column.

        > And the second
        > thing is that on a peer network it's important to treat
        > every host as a first-class information provider, because
        > the key idea behind peer computing is that each node in
        > the network has the possibility to make a very
        > important contribution to the network as a whole.

        What's more first class than a Web server? You can plug
        almost anything into it, cache, proxy, authentication, registration,
        security, e-commerce, collaboration apps, databases, etc., etc. When
        you get past wanting to just provide information to wanting to
        be able to provide writable information, security, e-commerce,
        filtering, caching, database integration, collaboration apps, etc, etc.
        you are going to need some serious technologies. 30 million Web
        servers and 400 million Web clients can't be *that* wrong can they?
        The implementations of such are not only scalable to big
        centralized things--they scale really well to super-small things. There's
        at least two dozen web server on a match tip projects out there.

        So, have you guys read Bill Joy's 6 Webs argument? Maybe he
        should add the P2P Web to the list as the 7th.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.