[standards-jig] JEP 65 - Bytestreams
ben at blahr.com
Thu Dec 19 23:55:07 UTC 2002
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Jan Niehusmann wrote:
|>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'
| mechanism does?
The 'connect in both directions simultaneously' mechanism does not
ensure that the TCP connection sets up quickly, just like Diz said.
Actually, on low bandwidth connections (maybe even the hardware in
embedded systems -- I don't have enough experience with these), I
wouldn't be surprised if it slows down the amount of time it takes to
establish a TCP connection.
|>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'...
I don't understand your logic, or Justin's, for that matter. You have
both regularly stated that DTCP is an easier protocol to implement, yet
you continually reject complaints from *client developers* that disagree
(namely, PGM and DizzyD).
| 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.
I agree. I say let both JEPs move forward as they are (as PSA has
already proposed), and let the council decided ultimately which JEP they
feel is the more technically sound solution.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Standards