On Sunday 16 July 2006 03:23, Bradley Arsenault wrote: > I discussed it with several people (not just glob2'ers), they all > agree TCP is the way to go. I don't understand why we chose UDP > sockets, there so much less safe.
<advocate client="devil">UDP has much lower overhead and you have the possibility to drop non-critical packets to the floor, also dropped packets (by network congestion) don't stall the whole pipe but can be resent and integrated later.</advocate> > At any rate all my sense seems to point to our choice of UDP sockets > indirectly causing this bug, and that a change to TCP would do only > good. Presuming glob2 is neither latency- nor bandwidth-bound, I'd think that be a good idea too. Regards, David -- - hallo... wie gehts heute? - *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch* - gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;) -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15 _______________________________________________ glob2-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/glob2-devel
