bdumm at bobby.bcpub.com
Wed Feb 14 18:09:38 PST 2001
wow this blew by everyone and no one had
any comments besides jay? So then go forward
anyways my comments below...
> > Again the alfs_app would just do whatever with %messages. Since
> > the frontend
> > is the one who sent the profile, they can receive these %messages
> > and process
> > them.
> In thinking about messaging, I got to thinking genericly about tcp vs. udp
> differenses, etc...
> I think it would be a good thing if the messaging had tcp like QOS
> guarantees in that BE sends message with MD5Sum and the FE gets that checks
> the MD5Sum and if OK, sends back to the BE, "i got this OK; readyForSend()"
> else "the net/commChan is FUBAR; reSendMsg()" (or thereabouts behaviour
> wise ;)
> In theory, this would really only be kinda inportent with error and input
> passing, and could really get away with not having check sum and only using
> unique message ID's and just answering back I recieved message with
ok you have confused me. Can you explain this again. We are working
in a tcp enviroment I thought, not udp. How are these messages like
udp and would need your additional checksum? I am just confused on
> Should their be a difference between warning and error like with compiling
> or is simple pass/fail good enough?
to me a warning is a message, not an error/input....
> > Thoughts?
> Kewl! ;)
More information about the alfs-discuss