Re: Cuirass actors

[Ludovic Courtès]

Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:

> IIUC, the current two “builder” backend are:
>
>  + local ’guix-daemon’: the queue of derivations is processed using one
>    strategy – the one implemented in C++,
>
>  + ’cuirass remote-server’: the queue of derivations is processed using
>    another strategy – implemented in Guile relying on ZeroMQ (something
>    like steal of work, if I remember correctly).
>
> Is it correct?

Yes.

> The Build Coordinator also implements the other actors “channel
> updater”, “evaluator”, etc., right?

No.

> From my rough understanding, the first aim of Build Coordinator is the
> implementation of the “builder”.  Is it correct?

Yes.

> My two questions are:
>
>  1. Is the Build Coordinator able to only process the queue of
>     derivations?  (being a “builder” backend).  And if yes, what is its
>     strategy for processing?

Yes, you give it derivations and it builds them; as for what its
scheduling strategy is, I don’t know!

>  2. In this picture of actor model, would it make sense (or would it be
>     possible) to replace the “builder” actor from the Cuirass one to the
>     Build Coordinator one?

Yes, that’s exactly the message I tried to convey.  :-)

Thanks,
Ludo’.