On Jul 27, 2005, at 11:21, Ralph Lange wrote:
I haven't seen one other communication layer that would require
non-contiguous data, including CA V3, so why obfuscate
the V4 data access with non-contiguous data?
Probably a typo:
Only if you consider disagreement with your opinion a typo ;-)
As far as I recall, the issue was never to /require/ non-contiguous
data, but to define interfaces that /allow/ implementations that can
handle non-contiguous storage, so that a network layer does not have
to double-buffer data.
I suggest _not_ to allow con-contiguous storage.
I cannot imagine a server that keeps his
strings in segments.
I understand why a network layer will _receive_
the data in pieces, but that's a problem of the
network layer.
All communications layers that I have seen so
far hide that detail from me.
With the proper environment variable configuration,
even CA V3 hands me the complete dbr_ctrl_double
for huge arrays,
so why obfuscate the V4 data access in order to
support non-contiguous data?
-Kay
- Replies:
- Re: ICE and TIPC Andrew Johnson
- References:
- ICE and TIPC Marty Kraimer
- Re: ICE and TIPC Kay-Uwe Kasemir
- Re: ICE and TIPC Ralph Lange
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: ICE and TIPC Ralph Lange
- Next:
Re: ICE and TIPC Andrew Johnson
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
<2005>
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: ICE and TIPC Ralph Lange
- Next:
Re: ICE and TIPC Andrew Johnson
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
<2005>
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|