Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"Al B. Snell" wrote: > ... > We use HTTP for RPCs, anyway? Being able to reuse Apache isn't a great > win. It's easy to listen on a port, perform some kind of authentication on > incoming connections, then just choose a scheme for delimiting requests > and an error-signalling system for use in response. Voila! On the other hand, a common, shared, messaging queue would be more efficient in both network and server resources compared to anything else unless only a single message/response is needed. > > One thing TCP does that's annoying is emulating a serial stream when you > really do want a packetized RPC interface. Basically, the implementation > goes to a lot of effort buffering - including delaying the delivery of > arrived packets to the userland code until a lost packet is retransmitted > - which you then undo by shoving in delimeters. Have you ever enjoyed the horrors of X.25 programming? I ported one application that had a protocol that assumed that X.25 packet framing was available. What a nightmare! I was saved only because it supported an echo command that I could use after every real command to know when it's data was complete. The protocol has to be self-framing or you lose your mind at some point. > > Vassilis. > > > > ABS > > -- > Alaric B. Snell > http://www.alaric-snell.com/ http://RFC.net/ http://www.warhead.org.uk/ > Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software sdw -- sdw@l... http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000
|
