[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: "connections" (Was: protocol-22 comments)

I agree. Once the usage is properly broken up in the document, it'll be
easy to swap terms like 'stream' for 'transport' or whatever seems most

>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 4/18/04 11:31:55 AM >>>
At 09:58 AM 4/18/2004, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> stream
> 1. <communications> An {abstraction} referring to any flow of
> data from a source (or sender, producer) to a single sink (or
> receiver, consumer). A stream usually flows through a channel
> of some kind, as opposed to {packet}s which may be addressed
> and routed independently, possibly to multiple recipients.
> Streams usually require some mechanism for establishing a
> channel or a "{connection}" between the sender and receiver. 

Another comment: one reason not to use "stream" to refer to
the exchange of LDAP messages is that LDAP messages are
addressed independently (by message id) and routed
independently to the directory operation executed at an
higher level. That is, messages from multiple operations
(each a source) are multiplexed in the exchange.

I note that my primary interest is not which particular
terms are used where. I am primarily interested in ensuring
that our terms are well-defined and used in an unambiguous
manner. I wouldn't object to using "LDAP connection" and
"transport connection" as long as we never use the term
"connection" without qualification.