RE: Streaming, batching, concurrent and alternating

Hi Shabtay,

> I proposed using the term concurrent to contrast with alternating as it
> clearly distinguishes the two use models.

Right, but those terms refer to the execution model, not the data transfer
model.  Streaming requires a concurrent execution model, but a concurrent
execution model does not require streaming.

> It has also been quite common to use the term streaming even when the
stream
> is being stopped.

This is a quibble, but I would say that if a stream stalls it is no longer
streaming, at least that is how I think of it when my streaming video viewer
freezes . . .

> Do you both agree that using "concurrent" as the reciprocal to alternating
is
> a better name?

For the execution model, yes, but not for the data transfer model.

> Batching of massages indeed allows optimizing the transport layer for
> performance. If we yet want to use the term streaming, I would suggest
that
> we narrow its definition to mean
 
> a) It runs in concurrent mode only
> b) It batches messages throughout the session.
 
Actually, (b) is not required for streaming to occur.  You can send
messages individually as long as the buffer on the consumer side does
not dry up.  In fact, when running concurrently, you might say there
are three separate processes running: the producer, the consumer, and
the channel.   The per-message overhead of transferring a single message
can often be hidden in such a scenario making it less necessary to
burst or batch messages.

Per

-- 
Per Bojsen                                Email: <bojsen@zaiqtech.com>
Zaiq Technologies, Inc.                   WWW:   http://www.zaiqtech.com
78 Dragon Ct.                             Tel:   781 721 8229
Woburn, MA 01801                          Fax:   781 932 7488