[standards-jig] JEP 65 - Bytestreams
jan at gondor.com
Thu Dec 19 23:11:48 UTC 2002
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 10:47:01AM -0700, Dave Smith wrote:
> There is NOTHING you can do at the protocol level to attain this
> (mythical) goal of ensuring the TCP connection doesn't take a long time!
You can't guarantee it, but JEP-46 at least tries to - JEP-65 simply
ignores that issue. And you can't convince me that this approach doesn't
work by ranting and shouting.
Of course, if it's impossible (or extremely difficult) to implement
JEP-46 properly, it shouldn't become a standard. But JEP-46 was written
by a client programmer who actually did implement it, I can't belive
Justin suggests a standard that was too difficult to implement.
> JEP-46 does not inherently provide any mechanism for ensuring the TCP
> connection sets up quickly; nor does JEP-65.
What do you think the 'connect in both directions simultanously'
> NO JEP THAT WE WRITE CAN PROVIDE ANY GUARANTEE AROUND HOW LONG A USER
> WILL WAIT FOR A CONNECTION TO BE ESTABLISHED.
No safety system can provide any guarantee that people survive a car
accident. But cars contain airbags and even much more complex systems,
which make a car more difficult to 'implement'...
In the end, this is a philosophical question - we could argue endlessly
if it's more important to have a nice protocol, or if we should
sacrifice some elegance in favor of people with broken setups.
So let's not hold up adoption of a standard because of this issue.
More information about the Standards