| ??? 06/14/06 22:11 Read: times |
#118331 - Protocol specifics Responding to: ???'s previous message |
In order to make proper recommendations we need to know if this is one-way transmission or two-way. You stated you didn't want to have listen then talk, but are you also unable to perform talk then listen? And in case I missed it, is this N:1 or 1:1?
If it's 1:1 you can include a sequence number from the talker. If it's two-way you can provide an ACK from the listener, thus eliminating repeated data. It may be cheaper power-wise to listen for an ACK than to repeat transmissions (but also maybe not ... depends). So we need the bigger picture. I have done 1:1 and N:1 but only for two-way communication. GB |
| 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 |