On Tuesday 08 November 2005 23:52, Mats Bengtsson wrote: > What I meant is that we already have some kind of bytestream negotiation > with the <streamhost/> and <streamhost-used/> and mixing this with > sending special bytes seems pretty ugly. > It is a direct way to minimize the racing conditions, true. > But you still have it, although the risk is much smaller than if routed > directly as xml.
As far as I know, there is no risk at all. You will have to explain what you mean. > The problem comes when you (we) allow symmetric streamhosts but it is > not an option to let the target timeout before it offers its streamhost. > I don't have any good ideas for a protocol to solve this sync problem. > Any ideas? What is a "symmetric streamhost" ? What do you mean to let the target timeout before offering a streamhost? -Justin
