Hi Tom,
I'm advocating using HTTP POSTS (via TCP) for log uploads. A "200"
response from the server
would tell the logging program that the transfer was successfull, else a
background thread
would "spin and retry". This would have to be spec'd out in detail with
feedback from the
logging software community.
The server side pieces are another story. But that is where the "secret
sauce" lies. ;-)
73's
Guy, N7ZG
>From: "Tom McAlee" <tom@klient.com>
>To: "Guy Molinari" <guy_molinari@hotmail.com>, <lyndon@orthanc.ca>
>CC: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Competing in the Daylight - Making it Happen
>Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:17:13 -0400
>
>>All you have to define is the UDP update protocol. This should be very
>>simple to do.
>
>ummmm... UDP? And the logging software is supposed to know which entries
>weren't uploaded? With UDP it has no way to know that; there is no
>guarantee the packet made it to its destination. The same holds true for
>TCP, but at least the client (the logging software) would know it.
>
>If you're serious about this, I'd be happy to help on the programming side.
>I work a lot with Windows-based services and clients and haven't touched a
>Solaris machine since 1999, but I could refresh myself.
>
>I'm scared by the proposals of the use of UDP though!
>
>Tom, NI1N
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|