Re: Look ma, no hub?

["Mal Lansell" <mal@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

--- In ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx, Gerry Duprey <gerry@c...> wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
>  > Is it compulsory to have a hub?  On Linux, you can bind more
>  > than one program to the same listen socket by using the
SO_REUSEADDR
>
> Couple of points though:
>
> 1) That isn't necessarily possible on all platforms and all
deployments
>
> 2) the xPL Hub stuff is pretty core to the protocol now.  I think
removing
> it as a need at this point is going to cause a fair amount of
confusion (do
> I need one or not?)
>
> 3) It's really a minor "one-time" thing to install
>
> Not saying no (heck, I can't say no), and I'm sure others have
other
> opinions.  But at this point, I don't think the benefit of not
needing a hub
> on some platforms is going to outweigh the potential confusion.
>
> Right now, as the specs go, the hub is compulsory.  Anyone else
have
> thoughts on this?  Should we collectively open the floor to debate
on it?
>
> Gerry
> --
> Gerry Duprey
> Ann Arbor, MI 48103
> http://www.cdp1802.org
>

I thought the hub was an implementation detail, specific to the
transmission of xPL over UDP in a Windows environment?  It's not
part of the xPL protocol itself.  If the platform doesn't require a
hub to function, I see no need to require as part of the spec.

However, being able to run without a hub means binding to the xPL
port rather than 50000+.  You would have to be sure that all other
Linux xPL apps could run hubless (ie don't just assume that there
will be a hub), and that all versions of Linux support multiple apps
binding to the same port.

Mal