taking python enterprise level?...

[Diez B. Roggisch]

Am 26.02.10 05:01, schrieb 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.

So when you talk about ACKs, you don't mean these on the TCP-level 
(darn, whatever iso-level that is...), but on some higher level?

Diez