[DGD] Network extensions, LPC interface

[Raymond Jennings]

Personally I've shied away from UDP in general.  It seems a bit
hamstrung with red tape of a sort, especially considering
datagram_challenge.

I'd also like to raise the issue for discussion of us presently living
in an "internet of things" where mobile devices across the globe can
be sending and receiving packets, and where internet connectivity is
not always a sure thing.

Just for the sake of discussion...I'd like to ask:  What do you do if
you have a client that wants to interact with DGD, but doesn't have
the luxury of maintaining a persistent TCP connection?  What do you do
if that client loses connectivity and reappears with a new IP address?

On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 2:59 PM,  <bart at wotf.org> wrote:
> As DGD has had outbound tcp connectivity for a while, and is now getting some
> rather desirable changes to UDP handling, it is quite desirable to drop part
> of the network extensions in favor for the equivalent base functionality.
>
> Doing so will change the LPC interface, most prominently:
>
> - outbound tcp connections:
>
> The connect() function is similar, but the callback to report connection
> errors is not. This is a minimal change to the LPC interface.
>
> - udp:
>
> UDP will work in an entirely different way from how it currently works with
> the network extensions, and will be much more similar to tcp connections (that
> is, you get a user object for each 'udp connection' instead of a port object
> for all of them)
>
> My question is, is anyone actually using the current udp interface from the
> network extensions?
>
> Bart.
> --
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrobjective/
> http://www.om-d.org/
>
> ____________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd