| ??? 06/13/06 12:24 Read: times |
#118221 - why keep that many Responding to: ???'s previous message |
use 3 buffers buffer1 and buffer 2
read to buffer 2 if record new type is buffer 1 Ok? if yes use it, if not throw it away move buffer 2 to buffer 1 if record same type if buffer 1 Ok throw away new record if not move buffer 2 to buffer 1 not a lot of thinking behind the above, but that would be where I would start. I do not see the need for 5 buffers, expand on that if it IS relevant Erik |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Buffer management optimalization | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Simple things first ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You can use circular buffer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Fragmentation problem... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| all methods have some problems | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Start of package or End of package | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Packages explanation | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Individual buffers | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Good Idea | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| New packages | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| hash table unefective | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| why keep that many | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Reason of 5 or more buffer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Protocol specifics | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| One way protocol | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| One way protocol | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| never | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Definition of need | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Grant, I agree with what you post re thi | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Simply reason why one way transmission | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
then why not just do it the easy way | 01/01/70 00:00 |