[ENet-discuss] Mixing Reliable and Unreliable and Packet Ordering

[Nicholas J Ingrassellino]

Looking at the headers I only see /ENET_PACKET_FLAG_RELIABLE/ and 
/NET_PACKET_FLAG_UNSEQUENCED/ for /enet_packet_create()/. What am I missing?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nicholas J Ingrassellino
LifebloodNetworks.com <http://www.lifebloodnetworks.com/> || 
nick at lifebloodnetworks.com <mailto:nick at lifebloodnetworks.com>

"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically 
solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could 
not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps 
some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying."
- John Carmack on software patents


On 09/27/2010 01:36 PM, Philip Bennefall wrote:
> My understanding is as follows (anyone correct me if I'm wrong here):
> 1. You'd first get the 100 unreliable packets, exactly in the order 
> you sent them but they are not all guaranteed to arrive. You may get 
> packets 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, but you will never get 1, 3, 2, 4.
> 2. Then, you'd get the reliable packet (guaranteed).
> 3. After the reliable packet has been received and acknowledged, you'd 
> start receiving the remainder of the packets (which is to say the 50 
> unreliable ones).
> In no event will you get packets in the wrong order, as this is 
> exactly what ENet is there to avoid. You can specify a flag to get 
> this behavior though, if you want it for whatever reason.
> Hope this helps.
> Kind regards,
> Philip Bennefall
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Nicholas J Ingrassellino <mailto:nick at lifebloodnetworks.com>
>     *To:* enet-discuss at cubik.org <mailto:enet-discuss at cubik.org>
>     *Sent:* Monday, September 27, 2010 7:20 PM
>     *Subject:* [ENet-discuss] Mixing Reliable and Unreliable and
>     Packet Ordering
>
>     I know I could use different channels to get the result I want but
>     I was curious about the expected behavior using a single channel.
>
>     Suppose if I had sent 100 unreliable packets, followed by one
>     reliable packet, followed by 50 more unreliable packets. In what
>     order should I expect them to arrive?
>
>         * Would I first get the 100 unreliable (in any order, if at
>           all), followed by the reliable, follows by the 50 unreliable
>           (in any order, if at all)?
>         * Would I get these 151 packets in any order with only the
>           reliable one guaranteed to arrive?
>
>     I am also under the impression that the second batch of 50
>     unreliable packets would not start to arrive (if at all) until
>     after the one reliable one has arrived?
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Nicholas J Ingrassellino
>     LifebloodNetworks.com <http://www.lifebloodnetworks.com/> ||
>     nick at lifebloodnetworks.com <mailto:nick at lifebloodnetworks.com>
>
>     "The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to
>     logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a
>     program that could not be legally used because someone else
>     followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a
>     patent on it is horrifying."
>     - John Carmack on software patents
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ENet-discuss mailing list
> ENet-discuss at cubik.org
> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cubik.org/pipermail/enet-discuss/attachments/20100927/c36d1b0d/attachment-0001.html>