Am 26.02.10 05:01, schrieb D'Arcy J.M. Cain:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:12:00 +0100
"Diez B. Roggisch"<de...@nospam.web.de> wrote:
That better way turned out to asynchronous update transactions. All we
did was keep feeding updates to the remote site and forget about ACKS.
We then had a second process which handled ACKS and tracked which
packets had been properly transferred. The system had IDs on each
update and retries happened if ACKS didn't happen soon enough.
Naturally we ignored ACKS that we had already processed.
sounds like using UDP to me, of course with a protocol on top (namely
the one you implemented).
Any reason you sticked to TCP instead?
TCP does a great job of delivering a stream of data in order and
handling the retries. The app really was connection oriented and we
saw no reason to emulate that over an unconnected protocol. There were
other wheels to reinvent that were more important.
So when you talk about ACKs, you don't mean these on the TCP-level
(darn, whatever iso-level that is...), but on some higher level?
Diez
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
