From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,83a56cb8370ebd04
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-07 08:28:41 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!69153-cm.able.ES!not-for-mail
From: Jano <nono@celes.unizar.es>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ADA vs JAVA sockets
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:28:40 +0100
Message-ID: <MPG.1a665228c9f634959897bc@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
References: <btggi3$evu$1@e3k.asi.ansaldo.it>
 <mailman.216.1073482273.31149.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69153-cm.able.es (212.97.169.153)
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1073492920 7312376 212.97.169.153 ([49872])
X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4180
Date: 2004-01-07T17:28:40+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Duncan Sands dice...
> GNAT Sockets in 3.15p is full of bugs.

While it's true that it has some bugs, I think the problem comes from 
the use of UDP, which doesn't guarantee delivery.

I.e, if you send too fast you're causing the drop of packets. Over a 
non-local connection that would be more noticeable.

The solution is probably not to insert delays since the situation will 
depend on the machine/line congestion, but to implement some control of 
received data or switch to TCP.