Re: [Beepcore-c-users] Another Beepcore-c Problem

[David C N. <dc...@ad...>]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, William J. Mills wrote:
> If you don't need replies back, you can have the end getting all the
> traffic send a MSG and send ANS frames back, as many as you want.  
> Ending the stream with a NUL.

Sending multiple messages in one stream would require me to do my own 
message numbering, which is a lot more work.  And if I do this switcheroo 
per-message, it is just as much overhead (actually one packet more thanks 
to the NUL) than if I just sent a RPY back.  So for now sending a RPY 
seems the thing to do, and serves my purposes for the time being.

However, the reason I don't want to do RPYs is that (per the end-to-end
principle) I want to acknowledge things at a higher application layer, far
above BEEP, so the BEEP-level RPY is not really needed.  Is the
requirement to do RPYs or ANSes from BEEP spec itself, or from the
Beepcore-C implementation?  It would have made sense to me to have a
message type that did not expect a reply at the BEEP level.

Anyway, the message numbering does seem to have been the issue at hand, 
and I am taking care of it now.  Thanks to both William and Darren for 
pointing it out.

-------------------------------------------------------
-- David C. Niemi           Adeptech Systems, Inc.   --
-- Reston, Virginia, USA    http://www.adeptech.com/ --
-------------------------------------------------------