12 May
2005
12 May
'05
2:12 p.m.
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 05:54:15PM +0200, stefan kersten wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 05:22:43PM +0200, Alfons
Adriaensen wrote:
Yes, that would work, thanks for the hint. While this would allow
the server to handle info requests in a stateless way without having
to refer to a list of registered clients, registation would still be
necessary to allow broadcasting asynchronous events to all clients.
Would there be a significant overhead in using recvfrom() and sendto()
instead of having a 'connected' socket for each client ?
--
FA
One thing I forgot to mention regarding
/addclient : the response
to this will include a client ID (integer) that is a required
parameter to all polled requests for information, such as e.g.
the list of stops. This ID identifies the client on the common
server socket (I see no other way to do this with a single socket).
i might be missing something, but why don't you use the
client network address as a unique identifier? you can use
recvfrom(2) to extract the return address from a udp packet.