[Dxspider-support] Protocols

[Martin Davies G0HDB]

On 29 Dec 2003 at 12:38, Dirk Koopman wrote:

[Snipped]

> The problem is that that core of the software needs to be rewritten
> and a completely different way of passing the necessary data between
> nodes needs to be used. It also could do with some things written in C
> adding to it but that will bring some distribution problems for our
> Windows users.
> 
> My domestic situation appears now to be stabilising (to the extent
> that I am now living in a completely different place with a different
> family) so hopefully I may be able to devote some time to writing code
> again.
> 
> The real question is: is it going to be worth the effort of doing a
> fairly substantial rewrite of the core code? Do I really need to
> maintain full compatibility (particularly with respect to user/node
> lists) to non-dxspider nodes. If I never see another PC16/17/19/21/39
> again - it will be much too soon.

As the sysop of a non-Spider DXCluster node (we're still using AK1A, to 	the 
complete satisfaction of our users) that links to a Spider node (GB7BAA), I 
would be unhappy to see changes introduced into Spider that would 
significantly affect its compatibility with non-Spider nodes.

The users on GB7DXC make regular use of commands such as 'sh/co 
<node>' to enable them to see (in real time) whether their friends are logged 
into the DXCluster.  The talk command, not only to users on the local  node 
but also to users on remote nodes, is also well used so the introduction of 
anything that affects or removes these functions will not be well received.

If the problem with maintaining the node and user state information arises 
from multiple connections then why not prevent such situations arising?  
Why should a user need to be connected to more than one node at the same 
time?

As for the suggestion of broadcasting all talk messages, this would seem to 
be a recipe for potentially seriously overloading any non-Internet routes used 
for inter-node connections.  Believe it or not, there are still sizeable parts of 
the UK (and no doubt elsewhere) that have to rely on RF paths because 
'always-on' Internet connectivity simply isn't available (either economically or 
physically).

73 and Happy New Year to all,
--
Martin, G0HDB
Sysop GB7DXC