On 7/01/2013 11:32 AM, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
I think that using "reference" rather than a protocol string is not a good
idea, because it puts this important differentiation at the end rather than first. Just
using
jini: for discovery V1 or V2
usb: for something over a USB interface of yet to be decided nature
udt: for UDT
mekong: for mekong
etc., would be the right choice. For me, that would provide a better bases for
a protocol handler/driver mechanism.
Gregg Wonderly
I did consider that, but it clobbers dns, we loose the scheme
information, making life harder if we wanted to do dns-srv discovery.
(Not that you'll use dns-srv for usb, but you might for mekong or udt).
Someone using dns srv to discover udt won't know whether it's jini or
something else.
You're right though, using the fragment or reference component is a hack.
We could use the path segment, it has no meaning presently for
discovery, jini://.
"/" could potentially be used as a separator for nested Socket providers.
This might allow the client and server to nest Sockets in an identical
hierarchy.
discovery SSL
|
DeflateSocket (compression)
|
MekongSocket
Cheers,
Peter.
