Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #36521 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-01-10 08:45 +1100 |
| Last post | 2013-01-10 08:45 +1100 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: ANN: PyDTLS Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-01-10 08:45 +1100
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-10 08:45 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: ANN: PyDTLS |
| Message-ID | <mailman.341.1357767910.2939.python-list@python.org> |
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 7:04 AM, rbit <py@liquibits.com> wrote: > The following are some of the main use cases that force applications into > datagram protocols: > > * Minimizing protocol overhead. TCP has relatively high overhead, > for example, its 3-way handshake for connection establishment. > One can see why DNS uses UDP. Yep. Related to that: One of our systems at work uses UDP rather than TCP in order to simplify the detection of node loss. Rather than working with TCP retry etc and handling the variety of different ways in which "the other node is down" could be reported, the nodes simply send UDP packets to each other, and keep track of the timestamp when one was last received. There's only one failure state: silence. Not sure if high-level protocol simplicity counts as the same thing or not; it's a different form of overhead. ChrisA
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web