Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Roedy Green Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: single instance Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:50:05 -0800 Organization: Canadian Mind Products Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <50e8eb1f$0$284$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Reply-To: Roedy Green NNTP-Posting-Host: K2Qzzs3EAqXk5RLzfhxcSw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:21427 On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 22:51:45 -0800, Roedy Green wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : > >I am puzzled about "227.228.229.230" the IP used. Where did that >value come from? Can this be made to work with IPV6? This is beginning to come clear. This the name of the group. Everyone sends and receives on the same socket on the same group. Just as you have a problem assigning an unused socket, you have assigning an unassigned group. I don't see how this works between machines yet. I think it should work like this: You ask the OS , please assign me a free port. Here is a UUID. If anyone asks for a port presenting the same UUID, please give him the same one, no matter if he is calling from within the machine or without. With such a scheme, you would not need reserved ports (except for the port assigning port), and you could not have collisions. Internally arrays of sockets could be dense. You can then hard code in UUIDs into apps. Users don't need to worry about collisions. Perhaps in IPV8. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com The first 90% of the code accounts for the first 90% of the development time. The remaining 10% of the code accounts for the other 90% of the development time. ~ Tom Cargill Ninety-ninety Law