[nanomsg] Re: Broadcast protocol

  • From: Paul Colomiets <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 22:37:37 +0300

Hi Jason,

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Jason E. Aten <j.e.aten@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I like the idea that BROADCAST could use multicast or udp.
>
> The 'catchup' (#3) should be entirely optional, since it will be very
> inefficient if the provider of the catchup data has to go back a long ways
> to catch up the new joins to have 'current data'.  rsync like differencing
> would be very good here for efficiency.

Without #3 the protocol is just a pubsub with the limitation of one
subscription per subscriber. So what's the point?

--
Paul

Other related posts: