IPC Protocols: Difference between revisions

m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
There will be many IPC protocols, and they should all be as error-free as possible by design.  Having separate protocols for separate uses is a good thing, and they all shouldn't be multiplexed by hand over a shared transport layer.  Further, protocol implementations should only have to check for errors as infrequently as possible; the heavy lifting should be done generically, or by code generated from high-level specifications.
There will be many IPC protocols, and they should all be as error-free as possible by design.  Having separate protocols for separate uses is a good thing, and they all shouldn't be multiplexed by hand over a shared transport layer.  Protocol implementations should only have to check for errors as infrequently as possible; the heavy lifting should be done generically, or by code generated from high-level specifications.  Finally, explicit protocols make automatically generating test cases (of "normal" ''and'' "failure" conditions) much easier.


== Terminology ==
== Terminology ==
Confirmed users
699

edits