[e-lang] VatTP and Waterken protocols compared

[Tyler Close]

On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Ben Laurie <benl at google.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Tyler Close <tyler.close at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Ben Laurie <benl at google.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Bill Frantz <frantz at pwpconsult.com> wrote:
>>>> (2) In the Waterken system, a message which causes a serious
>>>> program failure (e.g. running out of space in the current
>>>> implementation) will be repeated, possibly causing that failure
>>>> over and over, until someone repairs the offending program.
>>>
>>> Also, an evil recipient can stall the sender by never processing messages.
>>
>> The sender has an independent message queue for each recipient host,
>> so an evil recipient can only stall its own reception of messages.
>> Other recipients are not affected.
>
> So what happens when the sender tries to queue a message to the full queue?

There's no notion of the sender's queue being full. If an application
is worried about this kind of resource exhaustion, it can keep track
of its outstanding messages and stop sending them when appropriate.

--Tyler