[JDEV] Keep-Alives

[Thomas Muldowney]

I believe the problems I found when playing with this were the large
timeout and you lose the data you've pushed into the buffer.  Basically
you have to be idle before it kicks in.  The data loss is the more
important case so we need a smaller spacing in the tests.  If you have
the Stevens book take a look at section 21.5.  It has a pretty nifty
client-server heartbeat example.  It uses the TCP OOB data (sometimes
called urgent) to send heartbeats to one another.  This could be used at
regular intervals to ensure minimal data loss.  The problem is that a
lot of the higher level socket implementations (Java pre 1.4 included)
don't support OOB data well.  At least not that I've figured out.  If we
could guarantee that most languages could use this, then I would support
it.

--temas


On Mon, 2002-07-01 at 07:42, Matthias Wimmer wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I know there were some discussions about implementing keep-alives to the 
> Jabber protocol.
> Has anybody thought about using TCP keep-alives? I would prefer using 
> something at the TCP level over a Jabber protocol extension. (If 
> somebody want's to extend the protocol the client could just send a hint 
> as a attribute to the <stream:stream/> tag to tell the server if it 
> preferes using keep-alives or not.
> See "man tcp" on your favourite Unix host for more information on 
> keep-alives.
> 
> (Thought I had proposed this earlier but I havn't as I now noticed *g*)
> 
> 
> Tot kijk
>     Matthias
> 
> -- 
> Fon: +49-700 77007770		http://matthias-wimmer.de/
> Fax: +49-89 312 88654		jabber://mawis@charente.de
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jdev mailing list
> jdev at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev