Subj : Queues vs. Sockets
To : Deuce
From : MCMLXXIX
Date : Tue Apr 29 2008 08:26 am
Re: Queues vs. Sockets
By: Deuce to MCMLXXIX on Tue Apr 29 2008 00:36:07
> Re: Queues vs. Sockets
> By: MCMLXXIX to Digital Man on Mon Apr 28 2008 09:37 pm
>
> > With the amount of data I intend to be passing back and forth between
> > nodes, file IO seems like a huge PITA. I could be wrong, but that's just
> > how it seems. I've had moderate success using named queues to communicate
> > between nodes in a makeshift "chat lobby" I made... but it leaves open
> > Queues behind in memory, which interferes with the ability to detect
> > whether or not there are any other users connected.
>
> File I/O is most likely to work...
>
> > that leaves me with sockets, unless there's a way to free up queues from
> > memory so they don't show up in the named_queue list.
> >
> > that being said.. is there a simple way to create a local socket connecti
> > between 2 nodes? the format is a little confusing, and I've had no succes
> > so far making it work.
>
> Yes, you have one node bind/listen on a port and another node connect to it.
> But it sounds like what you want is many nodes connected to many other nodes
> If reliability isn't needed AND it doesn't need to work on multisystem
> installs, slicing off a part of the localnet and using broadcase would most
> likely be easiest. Basically, have each node bind to a known port on 127.0.
> where X is the node number. I think XP has an issue with this though... see
>
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];884020
>
> I'll see what I can whip up quickly for an example...
>
I pretty much have no idea what you're talking about.. Guess I've got some
investigating to do. and don't make fun of my tagline! I had just reset my
message bases!
---
� Synchronet � The BRoKEN BuBBLE (MDJ.ATH.CX)
