Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!bloom-beacon!spdcc!ima!cfisun!lakart!dg
From: dg@lakart.UUCP (David Goodenough)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: New UUCP Protocol (was: Re: Zmodem added to UUCP)
Message-ID: <713@lakart.UUCP>
Date: 9 Oct 89 17:41:22 GMT
References: <9745@chinet.chi.il.us>
Organization: Lakart Corporation, Newton, MA
Lines: 33

les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) sez:
> mjm@atti07.ATT.COM (Michael Matthews x7776) writes:
>>It seems what is needed before uucp gets inundated with compiled in
>>protocols is a plug-in protocol capabilty.
> 
> IMHO, this is exactly the *wrong* thing to do.  What we need is exactly
> one protocol, but with handshake on the details of the transfer.

No - I agree with Mr. Matthews. Look at communications in general:
Xmodem, Kermit, Zmodem, Punter Protocol - all do the same basic
function: get a file from one system to another. But which one you
use depends on several things (like do you have the horsepower to
keep Zmodem streaming?, do you have a Punter Protocol implementation
available?) The problem with UUCP is that "g" was designed around
systems with overlapping disk and serial I/O - To do a "g"
implementation when you don't have those is tricky at best (I know -
I've done it :-) ). How much easier it would have been for me to just
drop in Xmodem and go with it. Faster too: I only get about 160 CPS
throughput on "g" at 2400, as opposed to 210 on an Xmodem 1K. The
advantage of this is that it keeps compatibility: instead of saying:

Ptg

you just say:

PtgXzqsplat

and the master gets to chose.
-- 
	dg@lakart.UUCP - David Goodenough		+---+
						IHS	| +-+-+
	....... !harvard!xait!lakart!dg			+-+-+ |
AKA:	dg%lakart.uucp@xait.xerox.com			  +---+