Well, unfortunately, errors tend to be quite complex. If you need to
actually handle them intelligently, instead of saying "I give up,
abort," then you need a lot of information to determine the correct
course of action and how to get things going again. When I developed
911 code, I had to be certain that no matter what happened, that call
would make it through and not be dropped. Peoples lives depended on it.
There are a lot of things that could happen, and I had to make sure
that the call would make it no matter what happened in the system -
including total crash and restart of the system (which can be done if
you put some work into it).
Eric
On Jun 2, 2004, at 6:25 PM, Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Eric Hildum wrote:
>
>> As for the protocol itself; actually, the telephone based protocols
>> are
>> usually much better than protocols from data people. Since telecom
>> people are used to designing life critical systems they tend to
>> actually consider error cases when designing protocols.
>
> I find that often telco protocols deal with errors in a too-complex
> way, making it harder for the programer to handle them, not easier. And
> as well, the protocols tend to be far too feature-rich, making them
> more difficult to implement, and making interoperation harder and more
> error-prone. ISO/OSI versus the TCP/IP suite is a perfect example.
Received on Sun Jun 6 02:53:55 2004