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!

---
 þ Synchronet þ The BRoKEN BuBBLE (MDJ.ATH.CX)

.