Re: [colorforth] TCP State Engine

[<maslicke@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for reiterating the obvious. A Web Browser is an 
example use of TCP, unless you want to create a Forth web 
which I don't think can compete content wise. A local Linux 
based proxy was once mentioned, this is just shuffling the 
complexity elsewhere, not solving the actual problem.

---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:00:31 -0400
>From: Jonah Thomas <j2thomas@xxxxxxxxxx>  
>Subject: Re: [colorforth] TCP State Engine  
>To: colorforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>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