UDP sockets - again

Mark Wieder mwieder at ahsoftware.net
Wed Mar 2 12:57:25 EST 2005


Alex-

Tuesday, March 1, 2005, 5:17:54 PM, you wrote:

AT> There are a few other circumstances where you might want to choose UDP
AT> rather than TCP, apart from the speed and low overhead cases.

Thanks. I wasn't aware that VOIP used UDP.

AT> (And unfortunately, Rev doesn't support either multicast or PGM).
AT> (Actually, I think Rev doesn't fully handle broadcast - I can get it to
AT> send to a local-broadcast address and they are received by other devices
AT> - but I can't get Rev to receive them ... will experiment some more with
AT> that later)

This explains a lot. I had tried multicasting and decided there was
some problem with the network configuration. Tell me about PGM -
preferably off-list, since this is starting to get very OT, but I'm
posting the request here in case there's other interest.

AT> 4. Low frequency (or very low frequency) packet exchange.

I think I'd still set up a tcp handler for this. In fact, I have. I've
worked with remote data collection devices that would send a few
packets every hour or so and we've used tcp for the connection. Of
course, in that case data loss was very important.

AT> In general, my advice would be - always use TCP except when you can't.

Agreed.

-- 
-Mark Wieder
 mwieder at ahsoftware.net



More information about the use-livecode mailing list