river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Firmstone <j...@zeus.net.au>
Subject Re: Discovery v3
Date Mon, 07 Jan 2013 10:42:08 GMT
On 7/01/2013 11:32 AM, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
> I think that using  "reference" rather than a protocol string is not a good idea, because
it puts this important differentiation at the end rather than first.  Just using
>
> jini: for discovery V1 or V2
> usb: for something over a USB interface of yet to be decided nature
> udt: for UDT
> mekong: for mekong
>
> etc., would be the right choice.  For me, that would provide a better bases for a protocol
handler/driver mechanism.
>
> Gregg Wonderly

I did consider that, but it clobbers dns, we loose the scheme 
information, making life harder if we wanted to do dns-srv discovery. 
(Not that you'll use dns-srv for usb, but you might for mekong or udt).

Someone using dns srv to discover udt won't know whether it's jini or 
something else.

You're right though, using the fragment or reference component is a hack.

We could use the path segment, it has no meaning presently for 
discovery, jini://.

  "/" could potentially be used as a separator for nested Socket providers.

This might allow the client and server to nest Sockets in an identical 
hierarchy.

discovery SSL
           |
DeflateSocket (compression)
           |
MekongSocket

Cheers,

Peter.


Mime
View raw message