Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Using a single socket and simply passing messages to two different handlers would be much more optimal. #307

Open
kayabaNerve opened this issue May 12, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

Using a single socket and simply passing messages to two different handlers would be much more optimal. #307

kayabaNerve opened this issue May 12, 2021 · 1 comment
Labels
optimization This could be better protocol The protocol has an issue

Comments

@kayabaNerve
Copy link
Member

The current system halves the amount of connections we can have due to FD limits. We also have to track has live/has sync leading to issues such as #290. Finally, it's likely a bit more CPU intensive.
@kayabaNerve kayabaNerve added protocol The protocol has an issue optimization This could be better labels May 12, 2021
@kayabaNerve
Copy link
Member Author

The most annoying part of this would be Transactions; we wouldn't immediately be able to tell if it's a response to a SyncRequest or just a new Transaction. It shouldn't matter in practice, especially as we can still track rejections via DataMissing, yet would complicate some internals.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
optimization This could be better protocol The protocol has an issue
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@kayabaNerve