[MUD-Dev] datagrams

[Greg Underwood]

At 11:51 AM 4/28/00 +0200, Ola Fosheim Gr=F8stad wrote:
>Greg Underwood wrote:

<...>

>I need serial numbers to throw away duplicates. I do not want TCP,
>because I don't want to delay data that isn't dependant on a information
>contained in a lost packet.

Why would you be sending duplicate packets?

<...>

>ID overhead is one problem I need to resolve.  I developed a simple
>protocol for TCP that would use bytes for IDs based on a most recently
>used scheme.  With datagrams compressing IDs is not as easy.

I don't understand how your means of communication affects the information
you are communicating, unless you feel the overhead of IDing all of the
participating entities would take more info that you could stuff into a UDP
packet.  If that's the case, you could tag a set of packets, and reassemble
the complete message on the other side... I suppose that's what you meant
when you were talking about serial numbers?

> I've
>thought about establishing multiple contexts, but then the message
>cannot be processed until I know that the receiver has the appropriate
>context. What am I going to do if a message depends on a past context.
>well, I would have to retain all contexts until they are "obviously" too
>old to be useful. (Conclusion it is easier to be clever with TCP than
>UDP, with the latter you risk being too clever :)

Well, could we talk in more concrete terms?  What kind of situation do you
think will involve a message depending on a past context?  Basically, show
me why you think you need to store the context any longer than is necessary
to process a single message...

>> Well, as I said, that depends on what you want to do.  :)
>
>I want efficiency, flexibility and simplicity :P

well, I guess carrier pigeons are right out...

;)

-Greg




_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev