Re: File access questions

On Nov 16, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Kyle Sluder wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Nathan Sims
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hmm, isn't SOCK_SEQPACKET connection-oriented? If I use SOCK_DGRAM =
instead wouldn't that be a lot easier and lighter-weight, not having =
connections? I was going to do:
>=20
> Yes, but it guarantees order. If you're including your own timestamps
> in the datagrams, then you can use SOCK_DGRAM and reorder them
> yourself.

If the server only "sends" an update packet to clients upon their =
request, packet ordering probably shouldn't come into play in this =
scenario, but nevertheless, that's an interesting tradeoff. I will =
consider it!

Thanks!