Kevin Smith <monotone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> But monotone post data is already "chunked" into packets, so have you
> considered just posting each packet individually? Aside from the sheer
> simplicity that would bring to the code and design, it would also make
> it trivial to restart if the connection broke in the middle of the
> post.
each chunk is signed to confirm the sender is allowed to post. many
packets are only ~100 bytes. for a large post (thousands of packets)
all that signing is no good (plus, signatures are nontrivially large
themselves)
> Ah, but an individual large file add would still be huge, right? We
> could split individual large packets into chunks in that case.
a single large packet, I think, will go as a single large
chunk. otherwise the chunks have to survive across HTTP transactions
on the server, in some temporary pen, and that complicates things
rather a lot.
in other words, the 64k would be a "guideline" maximum chunk size,
which we'd flush any time we exceeded, but not a hard limit. we'd
always send an integral number of packets.
> Just thinking out loud,
yeah, me too. there's a few ways to do this, but I do want to keep it
*relatively* easy.
-graydon
|
Try Searching:
servers, voip, java, networking, microsoft ...
|
|
|
| 
