fuzzycow wrote:I know the differences between TCP and UDP - system engineer by profession
Its not really a point of importance - if transport part can be changed by developer, then the developer can choose what better suits a particular scenario.
fuzzycow wrote:However just to give some background to where I'm "coming from":
UDP is useful for networked logging, sensor data, etc - minimal effort is involved in socket management, so little that you can have each thread having its own client instance.
fuzzycow wrote:No worries about server being up, connection lifecycle, thread synchronization, etc. For message-based transports - UDP datagrams are also much easier to manage, then TCP "streams". Also in some cases of robot teleoperation - there probably won't be much difference between being late to parse a command arriving via TCP, or loosing a UDP message.
fuzzycow wrote: When referring to developers I meant any lejos user / programmer (e.g.: me), not lejos team members in particular.
fuzzycow wrote:Only potential work implied for the lejos team, should the idea be found to be worth-while, was basic things like removing direct references to Input/OutputObjectStream from RPC classes.
gloomyandy wrote:I think all that is being proposed here is that the current code is reworked to allow different implementations to be used, not what they should be or that some alternative should become our standard. This is fine as a proposal. I would however like to point out that this is likely to be more work than originally stated, at the very least we would have to implement at least two concrete versions to be sure that the changes actually work, then there is the ongoing issue of ensuring that it continues to work.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest