Comment Re:no... (Score 2, Informative) 407
P2P UDP is actually a very good solution.
I'm tired of the quasi-judeo-christian belief that client/server is the only way to implement networking systems.
1. No feedback on message delivery.
Of course you can have feedback on message delivery. What a silly comment.
2. Bandwidth overhead introduced by error correction/checking (UDP is the wrong protocol).
UDP has error correction (it doesnt have error correction). TCP uses UDP uses IP. There is nothing that TCP does that a system built using UDP cant. Conversely, a purpose-built protocol over UDP can be more efficient than the lazy approach of just using TCP for everything.
3. Central server still needed to record IP addresses to pass to clients.
You thik this is a good thing? In any case, ID's can be virtualised. Heard of Freenet?
4. Massive bandwidth outlay on connection. (Modem user has to send buddy image to all 100 buddies online).
Caching and distributed resource delivery.
5. t wouldnt work throught a NAT firewall.
It could work fine through a NAT. The NIC doesnt care how you architect your software.
6. You wouldnt know if you had become disconnected.
Keepalives.
7. You couldnt log on from any machine (ala msn, icq), because no central server to give you your contacts list
User ID's and passwords, encrypted distributed storage
If you want to consider more intelligent message delivery system, move past client/server with TCP.
-Christian
I'm tired of the quasi-judeo-christian belief that client/server is the only way to implement networking systems.
1. No feedback on message delivery.
Of course you can have feedback on message delivery. What a silly comment.
2. Bandwidth overhead introduced by error correction/checking (UDP is the wrong protocol).
UDP has error correction (it doesnt have error correction). TCP uses UDP uses IP. There is nothing that TCP does that a system built using UDP cant. Conversely, a purpose-built protocol over UDP can be more efficient than the lazy approach of just using TCP for everything.
3. Central server still needed to record IP addresses to pass to clients.
You thik this is a good thing? In any case, ID's can be virtualised. Heard of Freenet?
4. Massive bandwidth outlay on connection. (Modem user has to send buddy image to all 100 buddies online).
Caching and distributed resource delivery.
5. t wouldnt work throught a NAT firewall.
It could work fine through a NAT. The NIC doesnt care how you architect your software.
6. You wouldnt know if you had become disconnected.
Keepalives.
7. You couldnt log on from any machine (ala msn, icq), because no central server to give you your contacts list
User ID's and passwords, encrypted distributed storage
If you want to consider more intelligent message delivery system, move past client/server with TCP.
-Christian
