On 18 Mar 2001, Rich Salz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * I don't think we need multiple streams inside a single connection,
> > although perhaps this is a failure of imagination on my part.
>
> Or my confusion. I thought there were like three open TCP streams with
> bidirectional communication going on.
At the moment there are multiple streams inside a TCP socket, but if I
understand correctly all we actually use them for is sending error
messages. I kind of hope we can get away from that to a
pipelined-but-synchronous request-reply system. If we do this,
perhaps we can make a useful library to do the IO, or reuse an
existing one. If we can't, then running some kind of standard
multiplexing protocol like BXXP on top of the socket will be right.
> Sure. But if you're looking at keeping the TCP pipe full and fat, then
> beware the slippery slope. But since you're at least reading the docs,
> any duplication will be of *good* efforts.
Yes, I'm keenly aware of the slippery slope of trying to patch up
protocol problems as they're discovered. Talk is cheap. (Cheaper
than code! :-)
--
Martin Pool
