Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!apple!motcsd!hpda!athertn!joshua From: joshua@athertn.Atherton.COM (Flame Bait) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.misc Subject: Re: A comparison of Commercial RPC Systems Keywords: RPC comparison apollo sun netwise Message-ID: <10720@joshua.athertn.Atherton.COM> Date: 3 Aug 89 17:45:24 GMT References: <6569@joshua.athertn.Atherton.COM> <449d9c67.12879@apollo.COM> <118445@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <44c030ef.1d6d5@apollo.HP.COM> <9574@joshua.athertn.Atherton.COM> <44cba282.1d6d5@apollo.HP.COM> Reply-To: joshua@atherton.com (Flame Bait) Organization: Atherton Technology, Sunnyvale, CA Lines: 29 Nat mishkin@apollo.com writes: >In article <9574@joshua.athertn.Atherton.COM> joshua@atherton.com writes: >> 1. If for any reason UDP does not work, a person using Sun's RPC system >> can use TCP. (This option is not available to Apollo's RPC users, >> but is available to Netwise RPC users.) > >Look: The theory is that the option is simply not necessary. You pose >the point as if it is a deficiency with that the application isn't obliged >to make the consideration as to what underlying protocol to use. I just >don't see it that way. This is an important difference between us. I say that some applications are better suited for UDP, others for TCP or VMTP. Since the application programmer understands his application the best, he should choose which protocol to use. You say that NCS's beefed up UDP protocol is always the best, for all (or almost all) applications. This may be true in the future. (I doubt it, though). It is certainly not true now. If we ever do find a single communications protocol which is best for all (or almost all) applications we should call it HGP, standing for "Holy Grail Protocol." :-) In the meantime vendors should provide flexible RPC systems. Joshua Levy -------- Quote: "The Street finds its own uses for technology." Addresses: -- William Gibbson joshua@atherton.com {decwrl|sun|hpda}!athertn!joshua work:(408)734-9822 home:(415)968-3718