RE: [dcdev] Anyone still alive?
"Jacek Sieka" <[email protected]>
2004-12-28 5:10
"'Direct Connect developers'" <[email protected]>

> I recently went through the whole 0.8 draft (but I only skimmed the
> attachment you sent). It looks good, but one feature I am missing is;
> if one client via a hub wants to request a connection (CTM) and the  
> requesting
> party cannot connect (connection refused, firewalled/timeout 
> or whatever).
A DSTA will do just that, adding an error type for it probably makes sense...

> There should be a notify-message that the connection could not be  
> established.
> (Only if the connection attempt had a token).
> This can for example be done with a RCM using the same token 
> back to the  
> origin.
> This way both parties can be aware that the connection cannot 
> be made, not  
> just
> the connecting party. And thus, this aids network diagnostics.

> Extending this, a passive client can send a RCM to another 
> passive client
> which will answer with RCM and the same token. Now, both 
> clients know that
> they are passive and cannot communicate directly.
Client passivity can already be deduced from the INF

Another thing I'm considering (suggested by some dcdev people =) is a publish-subscriber message type that gets a channel id and where the messages are only sent out to the clients that have subscribed. This could be used by extensions for instance to only send out a particular command to clients supporting a particular feature...the only thing that worries me is that it potentially makes the hub a bit more complex...on the other hand, almost all message passing protocols have these three types, direct, subscriber and broadcast so...