[Info-vax] Re; Spiralog, RMS Journaling (was Re: FREESPADRIFT)

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2016-06-23 21:34, VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <nkhd0k$2us$2 at Iltempo.Update.UU.SE>, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> writes:
>> There are plenty of ways to design protocols.
>> Doing the size after the file will not allow you to have any
>> understanding of how much space should be reserved for the file, nor get
>> any idea of how far you are from completion.
>> But that should not stop you.
>
> So I can get a silly progression bar graphic or, like on linux, file transfer
> time left is 8 mins... 7 mins.. 9 mins... ... 10 secs... 5 secs... 14 secs...
> 2 sec., nearly complete...  transfer complete.

I was merely pointing out why protocols have been designed the way that 
they pass the size before the data. You might not enjoy the results, and 
you are free to design your own protocols. It don't change the existing 
protocols, and it will not make other people change how they design 
protocols, since some of them really think there is a benefit in this.

> Anyway, there are web servers for VMS and several other TCP/IP protocols for
> VMS.  You may need to ask those who have successfully implemented those how to
> approach your issue if you don't want to use the RFM=STM approach.  I really
> don't see why you think that's wrong.  *ix text files are streams with <CR>s
> and <LF>s, and binary files are, IIRC, sent in multiples of a block of some
> size (512).

Uh? Say what? Everything in TCP/IP is just a stream of bytes. There are 
no blocks, nothing is sent in any multiple of blocks.
(And besides, text files in Unix do not have CF and LF in them. They 
just have LF. Which is why I was complaining about Unix ftp 
implementations, which often lies about file size, and sometimes cheat 
when transferring in text mode. These protocols were not designed by 
Unix people...)

	Johnny