Scott, On 1 Mar 2008, at 17:09, Scott Ferguson wrote: > I'd think you'd see the same benefits if the types were handled > lazily, just by making the transmission scope explicit and extending > it beyond the call/reply.
I was just thinking about a variant which uses the current transmission scope as it is now, but instead of sending the type information, you send a small hash of the type information. The receiver would then query the sender for the key that that created that hash value. That way the sender doesn't need to maintain any state of the keys he sent to a particular receiver at all because the hash function is idempotent. This relieves the sender of ever having to maintain coherence of the type keys he sends out over time to multiple destinations. The hash wouldn't necessary need to be cryptographically secure, it could just be a 32-bit hash like a bloom filter. This is a small trade-off to the variant where you just widen the transmission scope, because you would probably be resending a 3 to 4 byte hash per type per request/response cycle, whereas with the widened scope you could implement it so that it averages 1 byte per type per cycle. So you lose 2-3 bytes per type per cycle on average. But you gain more simplicity overall, because the type keys will be idempotent thus making the protocol more robust. Thoughts? Ben _______________________________________________ hessian-interest mailing list [email protected] http://maillist.caucho.com/mailman/listinfo/hessian-interest
