Yakir, > Looks like my code is using the decompressor side feedback as > described. I do also see feedback generated over the air. However, > did not see anything in the function that wraps up the whole compress > process with compress4(). No feedbacks there, no timer, these are > good points and they are needed for my wireless links. Will do more > work to add these. Cheers!
You can create a packet by concatenating one or more feedback packets then the ROHC packet generated by rohc_compress4(). The result is a valid ROHC packet. The concatenation may be performed using the rohc_buf_*() functions. See the man pages for the rohc_buf_*() functions here: https://rohc-lib.org/support/documentation/API/rohc-man-2.1.0/man3/ > Liked you simplified API idea. No argument it is a positive move. Few > notes, > 1) The "automated" decompress () process - clear, of course in case > this side is sending packets back "quite" often. > 2) The compress() process - makes sense to piggyback requests this > way, as well. > 3) You've noted a "random_cb" in the args of rohc_couple_new(). What > this cb could be for? Handling the sending of feedbacks which have > expired because no packets was sent for some time? See the rand_cb and rand_priv parameters of the rohc_comp_new2() functions: https://rohc-lib.org/support/documentation/API/rohc-man-2.1.0/man3/rohc_comp_new2.3.html > If not, would be nice to have something to register to - the app: to > implement a timer cb for both ends? I don't like much the idea to implement the timer inside the ROHC library. Timers are very dependent of the OS (Linux, BSD, MacOS, Windows...), so it is difficult to be portable. > 4) Hmm... flushing feedback could have been nice if you knew to > correlate feedbacks to open compressed sessions. If the feedback can > be relevant (as other side might be still waiting) I'd prefer to send > whatever I've got rather than flush it. Makes sense? Of course, can > run another timer to garbage collect this, if qualifies as garbage... By "flush", I mean "send all packets to network now". Maybe we should name the function rohc_couple_flush_to_remote_network(). Regards, Didier _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~rohc Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~rohc More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
