On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/2/09 11:18 AM, Dan Peterson wrote:
>
>>     * Reliable Delivery:
>>           o For any communication mechanism it is important that there
>>             is a contract for delivery of the message contents, and we
>>             are working on a reliable delivery mechanism
>>             from WaveSandbox.com.
>
> What is meant by "reliable delivery"? What are your requirements for a
> reliable delivery mechanism? I ask because the broader XMPP developer
> community has put a lot of thought into this problem, and depending on
> your needs a solution might already exist. Let's not reinvent the wheel
> if we don't need to. :)
>
> Peter

Hi Peter,

We're still working through some of the finer points on "reliable
delivery", we're also hoping to incorporate some form of flow control.
We have yet to write a full spec of how we envision this mechanism to
work, so if you allow be to be brief, we expect the requirements for
"reliable delivery" to be:
- short term retransmission and acknowledgement of all messages (this
can be done using regular XMPP mechanisms).
- selectively dropping non-essential messages queued for
retransmission if there are any non-trivial transmission delays (e.g.
delta updates, which can be recovered by a receiver using getHistory
on receipt of a commit notification).
- keeping retransmission efficient by only sending of essential
messages over a significant amount of time (e.g. days, weeks,....
months? if a wave provider has gone offline. The retransmission policy
might be similar to what happens with SMTP (*)). Essential messages
would include the last commit notification for all wavelets on which a
provider has users.

(*) One might possibly add an active mechanism on the receiver's part
to query for new waves, however there are a few issues with this. e.g
after being down for a long while, receivers can't know the complete
set of servers to contact for waves without some central authority
informing a provider which providers have waves for whom.

regards,
Jochen

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave 
Protocol" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to