On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 06:14:03PM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > Nicolas Williams writes: > > Are there apps that want one more confidence than the first scenario > > provides, but less than 100%? I don't know, but clearly they can make > > do without support for the middle two scenarios. > > Yes, I understood what you were getting at. > > The part that I don't see is why validating those middle two layers > and getting "some" added reliability is really worth anyone's time. > > There are better ways to do this. For such a hypothetical > application, a better way would be to introduce a timer-based > unidirectional ack. The sender just does write(2) and forgets about > it. Once every <timer-interval> seconds, the peer sends back an > application-layer acknowledgment indicating the newest application > (sender-specified) sequence number it has correctly processed.
Yes, and this doesn't expose lower layer details to the app, so it keeps the app more transport independent. _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
