Re: Look ma, no hub?

["Mark Hindess" <xpl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 16 November 2005 at 20:56, Gerry Duprey <gerry@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> Mark Hindess wrote:
> >
> > Is it compulsory to have a hub?  On Linux, you can bind more than
> > one program to the same listen socket by using the SO_REUSEADDR
>
> Couple of points though:
>
> 1) That isn't necessarily possible on all platforms and all
> deployments

Yeah.  I think I mentioned this in my original message.

> 2) the xPL Hub stuff is pretty core to the protocol now.  I think
> removing it as a need at this point is going to cause a fair amount of
> confusion (do I need one or not?)

I agree up to a point but embedded device owners don't get confused, why
should anyone else?  Besides, it's trivial to write a test that would
confirm one way or another, to end anyone's confusion.

> 3) It's really a minor "one-time" thing to install

I bet they say that about all the best singe-points-of-failure! ;-)

> Not saying no (heck, I can't say no), and I'm sure others have other
> opinions.  But at this point, I don't think the benefit of not needing
> a hub on some platforms is going to outweigh the potential confusion.

Personally, I'm using one today, but I'm not sure why I should be
*required* to if it actually adds nothing but a potential point of
failure.

To be honest, I was hoping someone was going to come back and say why
having a hub added something (other than commonality across platforms
that I'd say we don't truly have anyway) that I couldn't live without.

> Right now, as the specs go, the hub is compulsory.  Anyone else have
> thoughts on this?  Should we collectively open the floor to debate on
> it?

Gerry, thanks for the comments.  I'm sure others must have an opinion.

Regards,
Mark.