Thanks Eric, To be honest, I was thinking more of the overhead in parsing the text either end than efficient network transfer. Presumably if I am using local sockets then the packet size isn't an issue. I envisage most users having SheetCam and EMC on the same machine. I will experiment with emcrsh and see what can be done with the existing setup.
Thanks, Les Eric H. Johnson wrote: > Les, > > FYI, there is already a hook in emcrsh for a binary equivalent protocol, but > I have so far not needed to implement it. There are several networking > issues, and I do not claim to be an expert in networking, however, as I > understand it, a standard 10 Base T / 100 Base T Ethernet packet is > approximately 1500 bytes in size. Which means, at least in the most > simplistic communications, that unless the text form of the message exceeds > 1500 bytes, while the binary packet does not, you will really see no > difference in performance, because both forms are still taking one packet. > > The client side library I am using is smart enough to pack multiple discreet > messages into the minimum number of packets, provided they occur close > enough in time. On the server side, I just have not looked into the > existence of a similar library or if the library I am using is doing the > same thing. > > Another bandwidth saving technique I considered is the ability to tag > certain information to broadcast only on change, but no more often than a > specified interval, and perhaps with a certain dead band. The most likely > candidates for this technique would be the position and status information. > This technique is already fully compatible with the existing protocol. > Again, I did not implement this, because the performance I had been getting > was more than adequate for my purposes. > > If you find otherwise, I will be glad to work with you in implementing any > of these techniques. > > Regards, > Eric > > > 3) Use the Telnet application. Assuming there isn't too much overhead this > bypasses the GPL issues completely. > > 5) If the Telnet option adds too much overhead then modify it to use binary > protocol rather than a text based protocol. I suppose I need to do some > testing and see how had I can push the Telnet interface. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Emc-developers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
