Re: Question on Client - Server communication

[Craig Carey <research@ada95.ijs.com>]

On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 02:37:43 GMT, Caffeine Junky <nospam@hotmail.com>
   wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 15:55:11 -0400, Preben Randhol wrote:
>
>> Caffeine Junky <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote on 06/07/2002 (03:12) :
>>> Use port "forwarding". Very simple.
>>> 
>>> The server designates a standard port. The application connects to the
>>> server on that port. The server then tells the application to switch
>>> to port number X and opens a connection on that port. This leaves the

It is better to not switch to a different port numbers.


>>> original port open to recieve more app requests. There are alot of

It remains open anyway. There can be one call to "bind()" where the port
number is given, and then many calls for to accept() for each TCP thread.
Port forwarding does not have switching to port numbers.

To have a single listening port number, can mean that code to strip off
headers is needed.

I have free source code that removes HTTP/1.0 headers like a client or a
webserver does: it is simple code that would need a bit of rewriting:

http://www.ijs.co.nz/code/ada95_strings_http_hdrs.zip

(That file contains a usable experimental replacement for Ada's
 Unbounded Strings package. It is an improvement.)


...
>Well...depends on what your doing with the tasks. If the tasks are
>generating alot of traffic, it might simplify things to tack on an
>additional port per Y number of tasks. i.e. Open another port for every
>10 tasks. This way the timing issues should be less troublesome.
...

Caffeine might wish that the word "timing" was replaced with: "ordering".
Also, adding unnecessary complexity does not simplify.

It sounds like an interesting project (now that I saw another message
 to CLA saying that Ada tasking and XFree86 (GtkAda too?) are somehow
 incompatible). I didn't catch all the details.