Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote: > >... > > One of our developers looking at HTTP and UDP > said, "But sometimes we need to push the data > to lots of different places and that isn't > HTTP!" I don't have time to get into a protocol re-engineering session but it is simply untrue that it is impossible to push information to multiple places using HTTP. > ... BTW: reliability is not simply > about delivering packets but sometimes > about getting them there on time, so what > Al was saying is relevant if it affects the > ability of the push dispatch to get the > right messages to the right places on time. I think that someone else made the point that there are better ways than just spewing UDP packets and hoping. Maybe you shouldn't be using a packet switched network to start with! Anyhow, nobody considers HTTP a replacement for UDP. > VRML multicasting struggled with this mightily. > How many real-time 3D gamers use HTTP, or the > DIS simulations? Are they "off the web"? Quake players think that they are surfing the web? I don't think so. If you aren't using URIs then you aren't using the Web. If you're using URIs but in a protocol that makes it hard or impossible to resolve them then you're using the Web but not to its potential. The same goes if you're using URIs but also using a bunch of private naming conventions in method names. Paul Prescod
|
