[MUD-Dev] datagrams

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad <o.f.grostad@notam.uio]

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

> Why would you be sending duplicate packets?

I would not, but the network could create some. For some applications
you probably don't have to worry, but I do.

> 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?

No, two separate issues. With TCP I can safely assume to know what the
recipient know. Thus, I can use a dynamic dictionary based compression
scheme. When a user is in a location then the server is likely to refer
to certain entities more often than others, thus it would be nice to use
a shorthand for those entities. This is more difficult with UDP if I am
to retain the advantage of datagrams.

> 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...

Because I have to use the same dictionary for deflation and inflation,
but want to use the same dictionary on many packets?

--
Ola  -  http://www.notam.uio.no/~olagr/




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