[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: "Binary XML" proposals

• From: "Al B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
• To: "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@l...>
• Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:10:11 +0100 (BST)

On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Stephen D. Williams wrote:

> No, the difference is that after connection, the rest of the
> session/conversation can be handled by another thread/process/cpu with
> TCP.  You can't do that with UDP since there is no way to know at the
> kernel/driver level what logical process an incoming UDP packet is bound
> for.

Oh, you mean once conversations have started and you want to maintain
state? Well, either keep the table of
which-process-handled-which-conversation in the master process, or use the
master process purely as a broker which replies (on conversation
setup) with a destination port to use that points to the correct child. In
practice, though, if you actually want a stateful conversation like that,
straight UDP probably *isn't* for you!

I'd like RDP resurrected. It strikes me that RDP can be implemented in
userland on top of UDP (which is, at heart, a controlled gateway to IP
itself)... that might be worth examining.

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  

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: "Binary XML" proposals
    • From: "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@l...>

• References:
  • Re: "Binary XML" proposals
    • From: "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@l...>

• Prev by Date: Re: "Binary XML" proposals
• Next by Date: Re: Tim Bray on XML hits and misses
• Previous by thread: Re: "Binary XML" proposals
• Next by thread: Re: "Binary XML" proposals
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread