[interfacekit] Re: BSession
- From: Pahtz <pahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: interfacekit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
Ok, I'm starting to like BSession. Thanks for the info, Adi and myself touched
on this but didn't
make it clear it was the over-riding reason.
So we need it, but can we get rid of its flaws?
a) de-synchronization
b) having to drop messages that are bundled with one which we don't recognize
the 'what'
c) missing error return codes
Cheers,
Paul.
Marcus Overhagen wrote:
> > > > What problem is it meant to solve?
> > > No you have some answers.
> > What does BSession fix? Did we profile? Is the cure worse than the problem?
> One command that is send to the server can consist of multiple parameters,
> and has a variable length. Sending each of these commands by using a
> write_port()
> call is a huge performance panalty. Thus multiple parameters must be batched
> in
> one transaction. And since multiple command are usually send in a rapid
> fashion,
> multiple commands are buffered, to avoid even more write_port calls.
> Of cause you can't buffer too many, because the app_server must process
> commands.
> Thats why there is Sync() to force sending all buffered commands. And the
> ammount
> of buffered commands is limited in BSession, too.
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen
> Marcus Overhagen
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
- Follow-Ups:
- [interfacekit] Re: BSession
- From: Adi Oanca
Other related posts:
- » [interfacekit] BSession
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession
- » [interfacekit] Re: BSession
- [interfacekit] Re: BSession
- From: Adi Oanca