On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:56:25 +0100, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Exactly. You buy speed by having an unreliable transport. That's somehow > fair, if you can accept loosing packets (for instance to transmit voice > or video, as you can fill the blanks ...).
Sure, but in some cases, there's only UDP possible and additional there are requirements for a reliable connection. Another "pro" for UDP is the possibility for "UDP holepunching". >> So, for now I stick to TCP and postpone UDP support to a future release. >> > That's sound also a good idea :) Not good, but for the moment the easiest way ;-) Another question: Is it possible to use the same protocol codec filter as I use now, and then put an additional filter between the networkinterface and my codec, so that this filter does the split to a propriate paket size, manage the reliability and the order of pakets?! If this would be possible, this would be "nearly" protocol codec independant (except that a already "protocolled" message would be broken into sub-pakets). br, Alex
