CVS update: tng/source/passdb

[Joe Doran]

Peter Samuelson wrote:

> The whole point of RPC languages is to use a client/server paradigm but
> present it to the application developer as a library interface
> paradigm.  With RPC you don't "communicate with a server", you "call a
> function you've defined which happens to be on the server".

So the transport mechanisms themselves become transparent. However
maintaining a flat structure to achieve this is surely more intensive and
expensive?

>
> Note that client/server and RPC are to some extent interchangeable -
> you can implement an RPC protocol using a client/server paradigm.  This
> is more or less what Samba does.  (The converse is a bit harder to
> imagine, though.)

so something akin-
client->RPC-local  ---> Server --> RPC-remote ( do action ).
Server -> RPC-Remote --- > Client --> RPC-local.

>
>
> MS Mail is not usually considered to be client/server, because there
> isn't a "mail server" process - just a file server which can be used
> for many things outside MS Mail.
>

um, yes Bad example. ;-)

>
> Peter, already regretting getting into this thread

Sorry, Just trying to get my head around it.

Thanks.
Joe.