Quoting Chris M. Lonvick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on Wed, Oct 20, 1999 at 11:17:01AM -0500:
> At 05:23 PM 10/20/99 +0200, Andreas Siegert wrote:
> >Quoting Volker Wiegand ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on Wed, Oct 20, 1999 at 04:19:50PM
> >+0200:
> >> The clever way out of this might be the mandatory inclusion of a sequence
> >> number and reference to this number in the repeat message.
> >
> >That of course is something we should have!
>
> Would it make more sense to just reference the timestamp rather than adding
> a sequence field to the protocol? If we add a sequence number, then we may
Yup,
that would mean subsecond time stamps then!
> get into litle logic games such as:
> - An event happened and a message was sent with sequence number 12345,
> - The same event happened four additional times within a very short time.
> Will the message stating that be given sequence number 12346, 12349, or
> 12350? What will be the sequence number given to the next message?
If we have some state info in the sending daemon that should nt be too
problematic....
cheers
afx
--
SuSE Muenchen GmbH Phone: +49-89-42769-0
Stahlgruberring 28 Fax: +49-89-42017701
D-81829 Muenchen, Germany
May the Source be with you!
