search

bluesky / bluesky-enhancement-proposals

0 stars 4 forks source link

Bluesky Server Proposal #15

Closed teddyrendahl closed 3 years ago

klauer commented 5 years ago

Random proxy-related thoughts: Without the DeviceProxy construct that allows the client to access server-hosted ophyd objects (devices, signals, etc.), messages will be the only method for clients to interact with devices. Interactive usage of the objects would suffer and, in cases, be impossible to do reliably. With simulated devices or any components that have no control system behind the scenes, client copies of server devices cannot be assumed to be identical.

If a DeviceProxy were to exist, we would still run into issues of how to handle such things as passing in functions/callbacks and other serialization nightmares.

In any case, I'm of the opinion that the proxy is almost a requirement, whether or not this proposed layer is (optionally) used as a form of access control. I wonder if we could learn something from how Pyro does things?

teddyrendahl commented 3 years ago

Closing just because I'm tired of seeing it in my open PR lists. Still would be cool 😎 . Hope everyone is doing well!

danielballan commented 3 years ago

Hey man! Same to you!

For posterity, these ideas are being developed in https://blueskyproject.io/bluesky-queueserver/