> On 21 Oct 2014, at 3:52 , Luc Fabresse <luc.fabre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2014-10-21 15:40 GMT+02:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu > <mailto:s...@stfx.eu>>: > > > On 21 Oct 2014, at 15:29, Luc Fabresse <luc.fabre...@gmail.com > > <mailto:luc.fabre...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > > yes examples are good. > > but I also suggest to use a stream on a UDPSocket instead of manipulating > > the socket directly in the model code. > > Usually, it lowers the code complexity. > > Hmm, are you sure that is even possible with UDP sockets ? > > I was thinking of using a stream on the data part of the datagram packets. > If you have structured data it simpler to use #next or #nextImage, ... > > And if the data part is bigger than one datagram packet (65535 IIRC), you can > append to the stream as soon as you receive the next packet. > > Does it sounds good? > > Cheers, > > Luc
UDP delivery isn't ordered, nor reliable. Build those into a Stream wrapper in order to reliably reconstruct a data stream from the sender, and you're almost back to TCP... Cheers, Henry
