Re: [colorforth] TCP State Engine

[Jonah Thomas <j2thomas@xxxxxxxxxx>]

maslicke@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Albert van der Horst <albert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  

> > All this sounds horrible. What could we simplify if we use 
> > only the network hardware to communicate between two Forth boxes?

> I wouldn't give up yet. Chuck sugests on his page that TCP/IP 
> could be done in 3 blocks. We have one block for IP, so maybe 
> two blocks for TCP.

> Complexity here is perhaps the price of admision for 
> communicating with the world. There is no doubt things could 
> be simpler.

The question becomes, who do you want to communicate with?

If it's only between Forth boxes over the net, then you need the 
minimum it takes to keep the foreign machines along the route from 
choking, plus whatever you want to do.

If you want to communicate with others then you need to be able to 
send them what you want to send, and you need to handle whatever 
garbage they throw back.  In general the simpler you send things the 
less trouble they'll have with it.  (But sometimes they'll demand 
arcane standards.)  There's no telling what they'll send you, but you 
can reject whatever you aren't willing to deal with.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: colorforth-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: colorforth-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com