Split definition of messages for unidirectional and bidirectional streams #503
Conversation
This does minimal editing to the existing text, and mostly moves things around.
| |------:|:----------------------------------------------------| | ||
| | 0x0 | OBJECT_STREAM ({{object-stream}}) | | ||
| |-------|-----------------------------------------------------| | ||
| | 0x1 | OBJECT_DATAGRAM ({{object-datagram}}) | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we give OBJECT_DATAGRAM code point 0 also to avoid the problem in #410
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably yes, though probably not in this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Given that both OBJECT_STREAM and OBJECT_DATAGRAM have the same fields and objects with forwarding preference "Datagram" are either sent as datagrams or dropped, is there a reason to keep both messages instead of using the same type? That would avoid the problem of receiving datagrams on streams, too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh I see that was your suggestion. Please ignore :D
Co-authored-by: Zafer Gürel <[email protected]>
|
|
||
|
|
||
| # Data Streams {#data-streams} | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
May be we need to add a note on what are Data Streams for ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good point, I added a sentence.
This is technically not purely editorial, but should be backwards-compatible in practice.
This PR does minimal editing to the existing text, and mostly moves things around. The text in "Data Streams" section needs more cleanup (e.g. to stop referring to "OBJECT messages" that haven't been a thing for a while), but this is out of scope for this PR.