Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!sri-unix!rutgers!im4u!esc-bb!halley!bc From: bc@halley.UUCP (Bill Crews) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc Subject: Re: More questions about TLI Message-ID: <305@halley.UUCP> Date: Wed, 25-Nov-87 19:48:55 EST Article-I.D.: halley.305 Posted: Wed Nov 25 19:48:55 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 29-Nov-87 12:48:38 EST References: <8711181601.AA00849@janeb.wisc.edu> Reply-To: bc@halley.UUCP (Bill Crews) Organization: Tandem Computers, Austin, TX Lines: 29 In article <8711181601.AA00849@janeb.wisc.edu> hagens@CS.WISC.EDU (Robert Hagens) writes: >Bill Crews writes about TLI: > >> One reason it might be better is that it makes no assumptions about the >> underlying protocols -- or, I should say, minimal assumptions. For instance, >> connection-oriented service, a "byte-stream" mode is supported. Some >> underlying protocols may allow preservation of message boundaries and some may >> not. The application programmer can maintain portability by refraining from >> making that assumption. Nothing in TLI forces that assumption. > >Does TLI allow one to take advantage of the message boundaries? ISO session >depends on the message boundaries provided by ISO transport. If it does not, >you may find yourself in trouble when you try to support an OSI stack. Does the *service* or the *protocol* need to "take advantage of message boundaries"? TLI does allow one to specify a T_MORE flag as part of the service interface. This allows a large message to be sent or received in morsels small enough to digest, but still be considered one message. Does this satisfy your concern. That's about all the *interface* says about boundaries, and, it seems to me, all it should say. I haven't implemented ISO transport accessed via TLI (or anything else), but a number of others have, with no problems I've heard about. -bc -- Bill Crews Tandem Computers Austin, Texas ..!rutgers!im4u!esc-bb!halley!bc (512) 244-8350