Hello Jim, > I worry about the use of UDP, at least for networked input devices. > Losing some of the event stream (e.g. up events) can be very confusing > to applications (not to mention device drivers). Wireless is unreliable; > UDP does not guarantee reliability. Latency with TCP is just as low > (and bandwidth comparable) in the face of no packet loss (if TCP_NODELAY > is set on the socket). You are quite correct there. I simply chose UDP at first because in the testing environment, everything runs on a single machine and UDP is the fastest and easiest-to-implement cross-language message passing system. In fact, all four daemons just expect classes derived from C++ iostream, so in the single-machine scenario, you could just put all of them into one multithreaded application and have them communicate internally.
> I've also been wondering about the relative merit its of an ad-hoc wire > format (such as you've defined) for events versus something like XML, > where parsers and extensibility is known. But it's time for me to > perform some experiments to understand the performance trade-offs, > rather than hand-waving; your existing code trumps my unproven > hypothesis, so I better write some code. I tried to keep the library core as simple and portable as possible, which is why I decided against XML.. not for performance reasons in the first place, but rather to keep the dependencies down. Yours, Florian
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
_______________________________________________ xorg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
