[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "concurrency" branch updated
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: "concurrency" branch updated |
Date: |
Wed, 04 Nov 2015 22:51:31 +0200 |
> From: Ken Raeburn <address@hidden>
> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 14:48:12 -0500
> Cc: address@hidden,
> address@hidden
>
> >> I suspect TLS is probably the more interesting case.
> >
> > What do we have in TLS that we don't have in any network connection?
>
> Encryption, optional compression, possibly key renegotiation, possible
> receipt of incomplete messages that can’t yet be decrypted and thus can’t
> give us any new data bytes.
Doesn't all that become insignificant compared to network latencies?
- Re: other "concurrency" approaches, (continued)
- Re: "concurrency" branch updated, Filipp Gunbin, 2015/11/03
- Re: "concurrency" branch updated, Michael Albinus, 2015/11/03
- Re: "concurrency" branch updated, Thierry Volpiatto, 2015/11/03
- Re: "concurrency" branch updated, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/11/03
- Re: "concurrency" branch updated, Ken Raeburn, 2015/11/04
- Re: "concurrency" branch updated, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/11/04
- Re: "concurrency" branch updated, Ken Raeburn, 2015/11/04
- Re: "concurrency" branch updated,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: "concurrency" branch updated, Ken Raeburn, 2015/11/05
- Re: "concurrency" branch updated, Richard Stallman, 2015/11/04
- Re: "concurrency" branch updated, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/11/04
- Re: "concurrency" branch updated, Ken Raeburn, 2015/11/05
- Re: "concurrency" branch updated, John Wiegley, 2015/11/05
- Re: "concurrency" branch updated, David Kastrup, 2015/11/05
- Re: "concurrency" branch updated, John Wiegley, 2015/11/05
- Re: "concurrency" branch updated, Tom Tromey, 2015/11/05
- Re: "concurrency" branch updated, John Wiegley, 2015/11/05
- Re: "concurrency" branch updated, Richard Stallman, 2015/11/05