3 ms·
This ought to be explained in the repo; "intention" and "pulse sets" are not technical terms that will be familiar to anyone. I would start with the problem you
by esafak 7mo ago
This ought to be explained in the repo; "intention" and "pulse sets" are not technical terms that will be familiar to anyone. I would start with the problem you are solving, and explain how you solve it better than the existing solutions.
- pronab 7mo agototally agree - shall be showing that demo soon - you are right — that’s a gap in how I’ve presented /formalized it so far. A more concrete way to describe the problem: In many systems where independently developed components need to coordinate (e.g. services processing data or running in containers), the logic that determines when something should happen ends up being: spread across code implicit in assumptions hard to inspect or debug over time What I’m trying to explore here is a different approach: make the conditions for execution explicit in the message itself; So instead of: components calling each other or relying on shared workflow logic they react to explicit state carried in messages. I’m working on a small runnable example to show this more concretely — I think that will make the idea much clearer than the protocol description alone.
- pronab 7mo agoHere is a simple demo to illustrate the scenario how iptp can play a role when the processes are distributed , this demo puts the idea in a single process though - https://github.com/spicecoder/iptp-pipe/tree/c0945090864fae357acb769b77e440480f655703/IPTP_Demo/semantic-pulseflow-coordination-demo https://github.com/spicecoder/iptp-pipe/tree/c0945090864fae3...