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 X-Google-Thread: 103376,83a56cb8370ebd04 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-07 14:23:12 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!priapus.visi.com!orange.octanews.net!news.octanews.net!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!uninett.no!leia!nobody From: Frode =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tenneb=F8?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ADA vs JAVA sockets Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 23:23:06 +0100 Organization: UNINETT Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: anne-bremnes.hiof.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Trace: dolly.uninett.no 1073514192 7168 158.36.52.48 (7 Jan 2004 22:23:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@uninett.no NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 22:23:12 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4190 Date: 2004-01-07T23:23:06+01:00 List-Id: On Wednesday 07 January 2004 09:39 Riccardo wrote: > Can I say thet JAVA brings such kind of problems? > (the same program in ADA works fine with an application written in > C++) As severel has said before, UDP does not guarantee delivery. My GUESS is that the Ada end writes to the socket faster than the Java end can consume it resulting in the OS' UDP buffer going full resulting in packet loss. -Frode -- ^ Frode Tenneb� | email: frode@tennebo.com | Frode@IRC ^ | with Standard.Disclaimer; use Standard.Disclaimer; |