??? 06/14/06 11:50 Read: times |
#118277 - Good Idea Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Your idea is quite simple and it solves couple of problems.
1. no more memory wasting 2. i can make the repetition search more efficient, when I compare the package size with the buffer size. So I will know exactly which buffer do I have to compare. Even if the sender mixes the package length it doesn't matter, I identify the sender in higher levels according to the ID what is inside the package. Thanks a lot again for your inputs. greetings Attila |
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 |