UDP support in the binary protocol

[Aaron Stone]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2007, Dustin Sallings <dustin at spy.net> said:

> 
> On Dec 16, 2007, at 19:26, Aaron Stone wrote:
> 
>> Do we want to add 32 bits to the binary protocol for UDP sequencing?  
>> Has
>> this been discussed before? If so, please point me in the direction of
>> such a thread in the mailing list archives!
> 
> 
> 	No, UDP support seems to be the minimal wrapping around the  
> underlying protocol to provide sequencing.  Not sure if I can point  
> you to archives, but the intention should be somewhat clear.
> 
> 	The purpose of a UDP based protocol would be to provide a  
> connectionless form of the TCP based protocol with less client and  
> server overhead.
> 
> 	When you think about it that way, you're just implementing some of  
> the parts that the transport doesn't give you, so it makes sense to  
> not combine them in such a way that provides redundancy with your  
> transport.  If you're optimistic, you have less overhead in general.
> 

Well, ok, but the only thing that the UDP header provides that the binary
protocol does not now provide directly is sequence numbers for
reassembling a large SET / GET.

Here's an idea: we have a different magic byte that indicates that the
common header is four bytes longer, and we use that magic byte for UDP
traffic?

Aaron