taking python enterprise level?...

[D'Arcy J.M. Cain]

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:12:00 +0100
"Diez B. Roggisch" <deets at nospam.web.de> wrote:
> > That better way turned out to asynchronous update transactions.  All we
> > did was keep feeding updates to the remote site and forget about ACKS.
> > We then had a second process which handled ACKS and tracked which
> > packets had been properly transferred.  The system had IDs on each
> > update and retries happened if ACKS didn't happen soon enough.
> > Naturally we ignored ACKS that we had already processed.
> 
> sounds like using UDP to me, of course with a protocol on top (namely 
> the one you implemented).
> 
> Any reason you sticked to TCP instead?

TCP does a great job of delivering a stream of data in order and
handling the retries.  The app really was connection oriented and we
saw no reason to emulate that over an unconnected protocol.  There were
other wheels to reinvent that were more important.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy at druid.net>         |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.