Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!sun-barr!newstop!suntops!santa_fe.Tops.Sun.COM!cohen
From: cohen@santa_fe.Tops.Sun.COM (Michael Cohen)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk
Subject: TOPS vs. PublicFolder (was Re: acintosh Peer-to-Peer Communications)
Message-ID: <741@suntops.Tops.Sun.COM>
Date: 15 Feb 90 17:39:44 GMT
References: <3782@accuvax.nwu.edu> <5374@okstate.UUCP> <1990Feb14.184128.738@intercon.com>
Sender: news@suntops.Tops.Sun.COM
Reply-To: cohen@santa_fe.tops.sun.com (Michael Cohen)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.  Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 21

In article <1990Feb14.184128.738@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
>example, copying files via TOPS is optimized for LocalTalk, which means it
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>doesn't try very hard to push data across any faster.  Public Folder does
>a better job of pushing the bits across the wire

  I must object to this claim.  The performance of TOPS vs. PublicFolder for 
copying files has nothing at all to do with whether TOPS is optimized for
LocalTalk vs. EtherTalk (or IP or TokenRing, etc.).
  It has to do with the fact that TOPS is a file-sharing product, not a file
transfer product. Hence TOPS uses a protocol that is optimized for file-sharing,
namely a request-response transaction oriented protocol, such as ATP.
  PublicFolder on the other hand is a file-transfer product, so it uses a
protocol which is optimized for file transfer, namely a stream-oriented
protocol, i.e. ADSP.

- Michael Cohen
  TOPS
  cohen@santa_fe.ebay.sun.com

disclaimer: my views, not those of TOPS.