[erlang-questions] : : : : : sctp_peeloff() support in OTP
Thu Apr 23 11:56:52 CEST 2009
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:37:21PM +0200, Valentin Micic wrote:
> > In what way is it useful to dispatch messages from the
> > driver level onto a PID dedicated for a streams if
> > you do not get flow control per stream?
> Not sure if it would be useful, and not sure if that is what I've been
> trying to say/ask. Forget about my "stream processor" (*) suggestion, it is
> irrelevant, and I prefer the implementation at the driver level anyway.
> I was only wondering if there is a way to achieve a stream separation
> without utilizing additional file descriptors. I think yes, but the driver
> may end up too complex and difficult to maintain, etc.
If it is useful it may be worth the complexification...
But I am now under the assumption that a stream separation
that does not utilize additional file descriptors
(as you ask for) can not do per-stream flow control
(with respect to remote peer) and therefore is not useful.
Prove me wrong and I might do it.
> I would be very grateful if you implement this feature whichever way you
> find fit :-).
> (*) I did say that stream processor can do queuing, though. This would imply
> some basic flow control vis-à-vis target PID, but not necessarily with
> respect to remote peer. :-)
/ Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
More information about the erlang-questions