![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Return to March 2005, In-Network Query Processing, Volume 28, Number 1 ). Such a decoupled design is desirable, since it allows us to significantly re-use functionality and promotes overall system robustness. In conducting this exercise, we found that TinyDB influenced the re-design of Diffusion in several important ways. ![]() ©2006 Association for Computing Machinery |