[Message Prev][Message
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message
Index][Thread Index]
Re: Look ma, no hub?
- Subject: Re: Look ma, no hub?
- From: "Mark Hindess" <xpl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:22:03 +0000
On 16 November 2005 at 20:56, Gerry Duprey <gerry@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> Mark Hindess wrote:
> >
> > 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
Yeah. I think I mentioned this in my original message.
> 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?)
I agree up to a point but embedded device owners don't get confused, why
should anyone else? Besides, it's trivial to write a test that would
confirm one way or another, to end anyone's confusion.
> 3) It's really a minor "one-time" thing to install
I bet they say that about all the best singe-points-of-failure! ;-)
> 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.
Personally, I'm using one today, but I'm not sure why I should be
*required* to if it actually adds nothing but a potential point of
failure.
To be honest, I was hoping someone was going to come back and say why
having a hub added something (other than commonality across platforms
that I'd say we don't truly have anyway) that I couldn't live without.
> 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, thanks for the comments. I'm sure others must have an opinion.
Regards,
Mark.
xPL Main Index |
xPL Thread Index |
xPL Home |
Archives Home
|