On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Joel VanderWerf wrote:

> ara.t.howard / noaa.gov wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Joel VanderWerf wrote:
>>
>>> Eric Hodel wrote:
>>>> DRb uses TCP by default.  It can also use unix domain sockets, UDP, or
>>>> you could write your own protocol.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know of a working example of drb over UDP sockets? There
>>> doesn't seem to be any support in the 1.8.4 stdlib, but maybe there is
>>> some other library you have to add?
>>
>> what are you trying to do?  i think i'd be quite interested too.  didn't
>> romp
>> use udp?
>>
>>   http://raa.ruby-lang.org/project/romp/
>
> No particular use right now. A few years ago I read that it was
> possible, and I *think* there were files in the stdlib to support it,
> but I couldn't get them to work. Now I don't see anything in there
> relevant to udp.
>
> DRb over UDP might be useful for projects where I work. We already use
> UDP heavily, for vehicle-to-infrastructure  (and v2v) wireless, so time
> in range is very constrained, especially at high vehicle speeds, or in
> safety critical situations. Broadcast UDP beats UDP (no DHCP time) and
> UDP beats TCP (no handshake). The channel is inherently unreliable, so
> the extra cost of TCP doesn't buy much.
>
> Even if DRb over UDP works, it would probably take some tweaking to get
> it to work with broadcast UDP (using some kind of unique session key for
> addressing, as we do now for our air protocols), in those cases where
> static IP is not possible.
>
> For most of our protocols, DRb simply won't be acceptable because it
> would force ruby on everyone who wants to talk over the network. It
> might be ok for some debugging/monitoring code, though.

me thinks you want to be checking out spread.  there are even ruby bindings.

   http://spread.org/

something like this done in pure ruby would be amazing.  i think there is an
ocaml one too... ensemble?  something like that.

regards.

-a

-- 
judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.
- h.h. the 14th dali lama