On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 01:25:06PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 12 Jun 2003, jw schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Leave the communications protocol to the communications
> > layer. You don't save anything by coding reordering and
> > retransmission at the packet level; that is infrastructure.
> >
> > Connectionless is fine. Lightweight sessions is better. If
> > you lose a connection a restart is possible. It is
> > preferable to not have to authenticate and negotiate
> > protocol versions and encryption with every message.
> >
> > Think in terms of transactions. Each transaction is atomic.
> > If a transaction doesn't complete you have the means to
> > roll-back and retry. If a connection breaks between
> > transactions, or leaving a transaction incomplete, you start
> > a new connection and pick up where you left off.
>
> I agree with all this.
>
> To extend on what jw says:
>
> I think it's fine to (if desired) negotiate SSL, authentication, and
> compression at the start of a connection. They generally require
> multiple round trips and it would be wasteful to do them more
> frequently when per-connection is natural.
>
> On the other hand it would be nice if the client could pick up an
> interrupted transfer halfway through the tree, rather than needing to
> start from the beginning as rsync 2.x does.
Mind you, that means making the server lightweight with the
client doing all the logic and a nearly stateless connection.
Much like my earlier post on this thread posited.
--
________________________________________________________________
J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember Cernan and Schmitt
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
