Sunday, July 12, 2015

Chasing... no following leads.

That's what thinking is about.

When you are searching your mind, when you are finding a solution to a problem, when you are thinking about anything, you are moving through the landscape of facts following leads which appear interesting.

I've created a structure; an abstract class called Lead which is extended into two final classes: PrincipleLead and LimitingConstraintLead. Both classes implement a variation of the verb "to follow": PrincipleLead::follow(Class<q>qualeType) and LimitingConstraint::follow().

Very interesting... Although I wanted to get CliqueSpace(TM) to function in this way, I didn't have any leads on how this might be done in 2004. I've followed many leads since then.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Does it work yet?

Ooh ahhh!

About 4 minutes ago, I just believe I finalised the architecture that is used to engage an administrator client, and have hence, all but filled out the body for the same architecture to enable two Agent Devices to engage.

There is still much to resolve around co-ordinating message transmissions, but I believe this is a very important milestone in the implementation.

Saturday, June 6, 2015

It all cometh together right here?

With the following line in LimitingConstraintMessage::addAfterReceive...
  • lc.addSourceSubscriber(su,subscriber);
I wonder if Clique Space(TM) is reaching some level of robustness. Although not tested, this line currently promises to remove the final clouds of mystery from a practical realisation of the concept.

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

An in-principle solution for robust device agnostic engagement.

I think I have been pondering this for several years since I dreamt up the "subscriber" mechanism as being a solution that will facilitate the establishment of "synapse" channels between Clique Space aware devices.

Today, I formalised what I think is a robust mechanism that uses structures developed over this time. The mechanism was seen through murky waters until I had finally developed the necessary data structures to carry it.

It is summed up by the diagram below.

The diagram shows two Clique Space aware devices (Client Devices - I'm beginning to saunter up to an earlier nomenclature that seems to have recently become more appealing, but possibly more on that in a later post).

The initiator, labelled as the upper rectangle and the respondent, labelled as the lower rectangle. The initiator can be any Agent Device. The respondent can be any Client Device (a Clique Space aware device that can participate in viscera, including Agent Devices and administrator clients).

Furthermore, the diagram shows how these Client Devices engage; how they establish their synapses; how they establish and communicate the Participants within each synapse.

The diagram can be further summed up by this slightly more formalised list, indicating which Participant is created at each stage of the process. The numbers coincide with each of the circled numbers in the diagram above.
  1. Initiator : Owner : Inbound : Create.
  2. Respondent : Owner : Outbound : Reconstituted from 1 as parameter.
  3. Respondent : Owner : Inbound : Create.
  4. Initiator : Owner : Outbound : Reconstituted from 3 as parameter.
  5. Initiator : Non-Owner : Outbound : Create.
  6. Respondent : Non-Owner : Inbound : Reconstituted from 5 as return.
  7. Respondent : Non-Owner : Outbound : Create.
  8. Initiator : Non-Owner : Inbound : Reconstituted from 7 as return.
The Owner/Non-Owner distinction signifies the role that a given participant plays in the synapse being modelled in a bipartite Clique. The Clique is bipartite because it is modelling an engagement between two Client Devices.

The Inbound/Outbound distinction signifies the perspective each device has to the two channels. If, for example, a Client Device A is engaged with Client Device B, then the Inbound channel on A is the Outbound channel on device B. In this way, the synapse Cliques model directionality of both synapses between the two devices.

In all instances where the two engaging devices are both Agent Devices, Participants which are created by a device are possessed by the device. In instances where an Agent Device is engaging an administrator client (I'm thinking about calling this an administrator device), all Participants are possessed by the Agent Device.

So, the device initiating the engagement (possibly, but not exclusively through the engager server's "engage" method), firstly creates the Owner of its inbound channel. The process that completes an engagement as a respondent is then called by the initiating device on the responding device where the respondent first reconstitutes the owner of its outbound channel using the signal given to it by the initiator, and then creates the owner of its outbound channel. Next, the respondent asks the initiator to complete its engagement. The initiator first reconstitutes the owner of the outbound channel from the signal given to it by the respondent, and then creates the non-owner of the same channel. When the engager finishes, the respondent reconstitutes the non-owner of its inbound channel using the signal that is returned, and creates a non-owner for its outbound channel before the respondent process completes whereby control is returned back to the initiator. Finally, the initiator reconstitutes the inbound channel's non-owner using the signal that is returned.

Now, to implement...

Friday, April 24, 2015

Robust disengagemt? Hmmm...

As of about one and a half hours ago, I've been able to disengage one administrator client from one Agent Device. The question now is: is this operation sufficiently generic to disengage more than one administrator client from one Agent Device, and furthermore, is this operation sufficiently generic to disengage two Agent Devices.

The first answer is: yes! It appears that an Agent Device can engage and disengage multiple administrator clients. It does not appear to matter whether these engagements are simultaneous. Additionally, one administrator client is able to simultaneously engage and disengage with more than one Agent Device. All of this is an intention designed from conception in mid-2004 to make Clique Space(TM) useful.

The larger question of engaging two Agent Devices should be answered in the next revision. It is hoped that once two Agent Devices can robustly engage and disengage, then the proposition of constructing neural clusters of Agent Devices might be seriously considered.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

It works?

A Clique Space(TM)  device appears almost to function as a quasi-autonomous agent. There is, however, one obstacle: the disengagement operation.

I've discussed this subject before in past blog entries. Any two devices that engage must necessarily disengage, but disengagement is not engagement in reverse. Instead, the process by which two devices engage each other is a process whereby structures that synchronise both (two synapses, two corresponding postsynaptic subscribers) are created; disengagement is a process where these structures are destroyed. There is no symmetry beyond this obvious necessity.

In the creation of a synapse, the two devices must synchronise the state of each other's postsynaptic subscribers created for this engagment, and this synchronisation must continue until both devices have disengaged whereupon these postsynaptic subscribers are destroyed.

I believe I have a fairly robust solution for engagement. Although the same cannot be said of the disengagement, maybe I am almost there...

Monday, February 16, 2015

Generic beauty.

I think I did something today that I might just label the "end of the beginning" for development activity on the CliqueSpace(TM) core implementation.

Something appeared finally to vault the generic structure: I discarded the notion of a "root" profile. Instead, I made the Participant implement the Media and Mode Profile's interfaces.

Many problems appeared to dissolve... perhaps.