[taichichuan]

Hi Keith et al,

I went back and checked when WRS purchased Interpeak. That was in the 2007 time frame and the Interpeak stack was integrated into VxWorks 6.5 (our FIRST code is based on VxWorks 6.3). So, our code appears to be the BSD stack. Also, digging back into my notes from the MUXLib code, there is an opportunity to exhaust the cluster buffers if the traffic is never read. This would affect any networking code regardless of the protocol being used. However, simply having a reader to gobble up the packets when you're not actually reading/using it would be one of the work-arounds. It certainly works for us.

Now, on to the NT implementation... I've heard from many sources that the NT code was terribly flawed and needs to be rewritten. This has been confirmed on this thread. There was also a hack that came out last season that marked the underlying scockets as non-blocking to address horrible latency problems with the FMS that particularly affected C/C++-based 'bots. So, I think we can agree that this code needs to be fixed or tossed.

I'm curious as to why sockets, a technology that's been working for over 30 years and is the basis for nearly all networking code around the world, needed the network tables abstraction in the first place. The socket API is relatively trivial in comparison to the NT implementation. Did someone believe that the students couldn't handle network programming, so they needed to hide it for some reason? It sounds like another case of trying to abstract details away by adding more complexity. I've found that the students can be remarkably resourceful when confronted with such problems. Especially one that is so easy to solve with a little Google Foo.

Sigh, let's hope that they don't bollux up the Linux implementation as well.

Thanks for all of the input on this one. It certainly helps me decide what to focus the students on for next year's preseason.