[JDEV] UDP vs TCP

[Thomas Muldowney]

Thanks Thomas, this is a great summary and well spoken version of what I was 
trying to get at in my last post to this thread.

I would like to point out that multicast is being looked at for some of the
massive scaling solutions.  Even though it is a highly specific case, it is
a great thing.

Conversation is good all, keep it going.

--temas

On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 11:36:17AM -0500, Thomas Charron wrote:
> Quoting "ltherond at elitehill.com -- pop account" <ltherond at EliteHill.com>:
> > I disagree. TCP makes poor use of today's networks.
> > How many times do you think a message should get onto the wire?
> > n times through n TCP connections, or once via a broadcast/multicast?
> 
>   In our case, not many times.  We cannot broadcast via Multicast over what 
> basically ammounts to a massive WAN.  While I agree with many points you make 
> regarding UDP, Multicast isn't one of them..  ;-P
> 
> > I agree on that, but TCP doesn't make things easier.
> > Shouldn't we find a way to abstract the transport layer? Using a plug-in
> > architecture?
> 
>   There already is.  Just as mod_http servers as a 'front end' and serves as 
> an 'in memory connection', a mod_udp module could replace the TCP 
> connections..  The core server still *supports* TCP, which it should, but 
> adding UDP support is very possible using the modular architecture.  Refer to 
> the source, luke.. ;-P
> 
> > > Then we can move on to optimization. As temas pointed out,
> > > Jabber is just a protocol. If you want to run it over UDP, give it a
> > > shot. Hell, if you want to run it over Appletalk, give it a shot :).
> > Hey, look at this! The same thought...
> 
>   No one said jabber shouldn't have UDP support.  The argument has been over 
> *WHY* use UDP.  I'm CERTAIN that UDP support wouldn't be procluded from the 
> distrobution if someone wrote it.  The developers speaking against UDP don't 
> happen to *AGREE*, but that ceratinly doesn't mean it can't/won't be done.  It 
> simply means thehy do not see the value, and aren;t interested in it.  Many 
> people working on Apache certainly aren;t interested in mod_perl, yet there it 
> is..  ;-P
> 
> > > This is an open-source software project. Instead of blabbing on a
> > > listserv, that we're stupid and wouldn't know how to make a "hello
> > > world" program without your hand-holding, give us some code!
> > Ooooooooooo! That was a little mean! :-)
> > Problems have solutions...if you can remain open to them.
> 
>   We're all on the same page here.  If not, hopefully we are now..  Every 
> technology will have pro's and con's, and developers for and against.  This 
> DOESN'T MEAN it won't/can't happen.  It simply means that perhaps that 
> developer isn;t interested in working on it at the moment.
> 
> --- 
> Thomas Charron
> << Wanted: One decent sig >>
> << Preferably litle used  >>
> << and stored in garage.  ?>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jdev mailing list
> jdev at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20000901/49b58c81/attachment-0002.pgp>