Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 11:32:55 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com (Joe Greco), jdp@polstra.com, scrappy@ki.net, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sockets question... Message-ID: <199611151832.LAA12528@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199611151748.KAA26388@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199611150414.WAA26986@brasil.moneng.mei.com> <199611151748.KAA26388@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Non-blocking sockets for reliable stream protocols like TCP/IP are > a stupid idea. > > If I wanted datagrams, I would pick a protocol like UDP. You are outta your league now Terry, and into mine. This is what *I* have been doing for years, and I'd like to think I know a little bit about it given that it's what I get paid to do. *grin* You have *very little* idea what you are talking about here, and in the midst of the volumnous email said very little in terms of content and knowledge of what's going on. Your best bet at this point in time is to either back off and leave what little shred of credibility you have, or keep going and lose it all. Yes, you *can* use UDP for packets, but it brings with it a host of other problems too numerous too mention. It's a piece of cake to use TCP to send 'packetized' data (and for many applications the 'right' thing to do) IFF you know what you are doing and are aware of the gotchas, which you apparently don't given your blanket statement. There are tradeoffs for any solution, and knowing the advantages and tradeoffs for each is an excercise left for the reader since Terry's advice is misguided at best, and wrong in the worst case. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611151832.LAA12528>