Xojo Conferences
MBSOct2019CologneDE

Peer to Peer Messaging (Real Studio network user group Mailinglist archive)

Back to the thread list
Previous thread: Big unicode problem
Next thread: Destructor called when?


Yahoo Messager Sign on Sequence   -   Peter
  Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Philip M. McDonnell
   Re: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Christian Schmitz
    Re: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Mike Benonis
     Re: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Christian Schmitz
   Re: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Mike Benonis
    Re: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Will Leshner
     Re: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Kevin Ballard
     Re: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Kevin Ballard
      Re: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Will Leshner
      Re: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Will Leshner
       Re: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Mike Benonis
        Re: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Will Leshner
    Re: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Chris
     Re: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Will Leshner
      RE: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Philip M. McDonnell
       Re: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Kevin Ballard
        RE: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Philip M. McDonnell
         Re: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Frank Bitterlich
       Re: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Will Leshner
       Re: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Charles Yeomans
        RE: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Philip M. McDonnell
    Re: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Chris
     Re: Peer to Peer Messaging   -   Will Leshner

Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 27.08.02 23:56 (Tue, 27 Aug 2002 18:56:08 -0400)
From: Philip M. McDonnell
Hi All,

Has anyone done a peer-peer messaging system? I am looking to make a simple
IM like AOL but only for several computers on a lan and I don't want to have
a central server to do this. Is it possible? Anyone done something like
this? Care to share?

Regards,
Phil

---
* Dude! You should have got a Mac....... *

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 00:23 (Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:23:13 +0200)
From: Christian Schmitz
> Hi All,
>
> Has anyone done a peer-peer messaging system? I am looking to make a simple
> IM like AOL but only for several computers on a lan and I don't want to have
> a central server to do this. Is it possible? Anyone done something like
> this? Care to share?

Maybe you wait some days till a plugin developer offers you Rendevouz
support...
Else, try to get a plugin fro UDP packets (like Supersocket).

Mfg
Christian

Re: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 00:29 (Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:29:26 -0400)
From: Mike Benonis
on 8/27/02 7:23 PM, Christian Schmitz at <email address removed>
wrote:

> Maybe you wait some days till a plugin developer offers you Rendevouz
> support...
> Else, try to get a plugin fro UDP packets (like Supersocket).

Will this end up in the MBS plugin?

-Mike

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 01:24 (Wed, 28 Aug 2002 02:24:27 +0200)
From: Christian Schmitz
> on 8/27/02 7:23 PM, Christian Schmitz at <email address removed>
> wrote:
>
> > Maybe you wait some days till a plugin developer offers you Rendevouz
> > support...
> > Else, try to get a plugin fro UDP packets (like Supersocket).
>
> Will this end up in the MBS plugin?

If it's possible, yes.

Mfg
Christian

Re: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 00:25 (Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:25:14 -0400)
From: Mike Benonis
Uhhh, how about Apple? iChat comes standard in 10.2, and supports
Rendezvous messaging over a LAN, and AIM messaging over the Internet.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/

-Mike

on 8/27/02 6:56 PM, Philip M. McDonnell at <email address removed> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Has anyone done a peer-peer messaging system? I am looking to make a simple
> IM like AOL but only for several computers on a lan and I don't want to have
> a central server to do this. Is it possible? Anyone done something like
> this? Care to share?

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 00:34 (Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:34:56 -0700)
From: Will Leshner
I have this idea for a messaging system that would be both IM and mail
at the same time. The idea is that you'd send a message to somebody. If
they are online then they get the message immediately and can reply. In
that case it would feel like chat. But if they aren't online, then the
message would wait and deliver itself somehow when they came online.
Then they could reply to the message. You'd either get the reply
synchronously if you are online and asynchronously if you aren't.

And all messages in the "thread" would be saved, as they are for email.

Now if this could all be done peer-to-peer, as opposed to
server/client, I think it would be very cool. I'm betting, though, that
it would be difficult to achieve nirvana without a server.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 04:25 PM, Mike Benonis wrote:

> Uhhh, how about Apple? iChat comes standard in 10.2, and supports
> Rendezvous messaging over a LAN, and AIM messaging over the Internet.
>
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/
>
> -Mike
>
> on 8/27/02 6:56 PM, Philip M. McDonnell at <email address removed> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Has anyone done a peer-peer messaging system? I am looking to make a
>> simple
>> IM like AOL but only for several computers on a lan and I don't want
>> to have
>> a central server to do this. Is it possible? Anyone done something
>> like
>> this? Care to share?
>
> ---
> Subscribe to the digest:
> <mailto:<email address removed>>
> Unsubscribe:
> <mailto:<email address removed>>

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 00:37 (Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:37:18 -0400)
From: Kevin Ballard
The only way it could work is if the person trying to send the message
to the offline person left their client running until the offline
person goes online. And it wouldn't work too well.

Use a server.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 07:34 PM, Will Leshner wrote:

> I have this idea for a messaging system that would be both IM and mail
> at the same time. The idea is that you'd send a message to somebody.
> If they are online then they get the message immediately and can
> reply. In that case it would feel like chat. But if they aren't
> online, then the message would wait and deliver itself somehow when
> they came online. Then they could reply to the message. You'd either
> get the reply synchronously if you are online and asynchronously if
> you aren't.
>
> And all messages in the "thread" would be saved, as they are for email.
>
> Now if this could all be done peer-to-peer, as opposed to
> server/client, I think it would be very cool. I'm betting, though,
> that it would be difficult to achieve nirvana without a server.

Re: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 00:40 (Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:40:05 -0400)
From: Kevin Ballard
Actually, I have an idea.

Migrating server.

Basically, whichever client goes online first becomes the server. Any
other client that goes online looks for a server first, and if it finds
one, it connects. If the server quits, it passes server-ness to another
client. And all clients can keep copies of the threads, with the server
client being the definitive authority. And so on.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 07:34 PM, Will Leshner wrote:

> I have this idea for a messaging system that would be both IM and mail
> at the same time. The idea is that you'd send a message to somebody.
> If they are online then they get the message immediately and can
> reply. In that case it would feel like chat. But if they aren't
> online, then the message would wait and deliver itself somehow when
> they came online. Then they could reply to the message. You'd either
> get the reply synchronously if you are online and asynchronously if
> you aren't.
>
> And all messages in the "thread" would be saved, as they are for email.
>
> Now if this could all be done peer-to-peer, as opposed to
> server/client, I think it would be very cool. I'm betting, though,
> that it would be difficult to achieve nirvana without a server.

Re: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 00:44 (Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:44:28 -0700)
From: Will Leshner
That is a cool idea. That just might work. I had been thinking of
something along those lines. But not quite that well defined.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 04:40 PM, Kevin Ballard wrote:

> Actually, I have an idea.
>
> Migrating server.
>
> Basically, whichever client goes online first becomes the server. Any
> other client that goes online looks for a server first, and if it
> finds one, it connects. If the server quits, it passes server-ness to
> another client. And all clients can keep copies of the threads, with
> the server client being the definitive authority. And so on.

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 00:47 (Tue, 27 Aug 2002 16:47:32 -0700)
From: Will Leshner
Actually, there's a third component to this idea. People could
subscribe to chat threads and when they did they would have access to
all the previous messages in the thread. That'd basically be like NNTP.
So this thing would have the immediacy of IM, the asynchronousness of
mail, with the storage of news.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 04:40 PM, Kevin Ballard wrote:

> Actually, I have an idea.
>
> Migrating server.
>
> Basically, whichever client goes online first becomes the server. Any
> other client that goes online looks for a server first, and if it
> finds one, it connects. If the server quits, it passes server-ness to
> another client. And all clients can keep copies of the threads, with
> the server client being the definitive authority. And so on.

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 00:54 (Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:54:52 -0400)
From: Mike Benonis
This sounds like a really cool idea. One obvious feature would be that if
you are not part of the chat, you still get records of what was said, unlike
current IM systems.

-Mike

on 8/27/02 7:47 PM, Will Leshner at <email address removed> wrote:

> Actually, there's a third component to this idea. People could
> subscribe to chat threads and when they did they would have access to
> all the previous messages in the thread. That'd basically be like NNTP.
> So this thing would have the immediacy of IM, the asynchronousness of
> mail, with the storage of news.
>
> On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 04:40 PM, Kevin Ballard wrote:
>
>> Actually, I have an idea.
>>
>> Migrating server.
>>
>> Basically, whichever client goes online first becomes the server. Any
>> other client that goes online looks for a server first, and if it
>> finds one, it connects. If the server quits, it passes server-ness to
>> another client. And all clients can keep copies of the threads, with
>> the server client being the definitive authority. And so on.

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 03:08 (Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:08:36 -0700)
From: Will Leshner
Right. That's the idea.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 04:54 PM, Mike Benonis wrote:

> This sounds like a really cool idea. One obvious feature would be
> that if
> you are not part of the chat, you still get records of what was said,
> unlike
> current IM systems.

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 01:43 (Tue, 27 Aug 2002 20:43:00 -0400)
From: Chris
>I have this idea for a messaging system that would be both IM and mail
>at the same time. The idea is that you'd send a message to somebody. If
>they are online then they get the message immediately and can reply. In
>that case it would feel like chat. But if they aren't online, then the
>message would wait and deliver itself somehow when they came online.
>Then they could reply to the message. You'd either get the reply
>synchronously if you are online and asynchronously if you aren't.
>
>And all messages in the "thread" would be saved, as they are for email.
>
>Now if this could all be done peer-to-peer, as opposed to
>server/client, I think it would be very cool. I'm betting, though, that
>it would be difficult to achieve nirvana without a server.

Although it isn't as elegant as you probably are thinking, AIM will more
or less do this now, as long as the person is "online" but they can be
away from their computer. I know a number of people with 24x7 connections
that leave AIM on 24x7, and just put up an away message when they are not
near their computer. Messages then pile up in a queue waiting for them to
return.

Of course, I am sure you want something that will work when someone
*really* isn't online, and not just away from a 24x7 connected computer.
(ie: will work with dialup or other part time connections)

-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 03:10 (Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:10:21 -0700)
From: Will Leshner
Right. And additionally, I'd like people to join discussions "late" (as
in months later) and still be able to get all the messages.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 05:43 PM, Chris wrote:

> Of course, I am sure you want something that will work when someone
> *really* isn't online, and not just away from a 24x7 connected
> computer.
> (ie: will work with dialup or other part time connections)

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

RE: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 04:32 (Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:32:32 -0400)
From: Philip M. McDonnell
Well thank you all for your replies.

However you guys are talking about a more sophisticated project than I need.
Basically I need an IM for a local lan, maybe across the net eventually, but
for now a local lan only IM. I don't want to have to have a server nor do I
want to have to have access to the net, just a local lan.

Ideas?

Thanks again,
Phil

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 04:37 (Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:37:45 -0400)
From: Kevin Ballard
Upgrade to Jaguar and use iChat's Rendezvous feature.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 11:32 PM, Philip M. McDonnell wrote:

> Well thank you all for your replies.
>
> However you guys are talking about a more sophisticated project than I
> need.
> Basically I need an IM for a local lan, maybe across the net
> eventually, but
> for now a local lan only IM. I don't want to have to have a server nor
> do I
> want to have to have access to the net, just a local lan.

RE: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 04:42 (Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:42:20 -0400)
From: Philip M. McDonnell
> Upgrade to Jaguar and use iChat's Rendezvous feature.

This is not acceptable because there are windows users on the lan as well...

:(

Phil

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 11:19 (Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:19:59 +0200)
From: Frank Bitterlich
Well just tell the Windows clients they're not acceptable... LOL - just
kidding.

The problem with a simplistic TCP-based peer-to-peer system is to chose
the right connection scheme. Basically you have three choices:
- every client has a connection to every other client. That's a lot of
connections to handle.
- the clients build a daisy-chain. Drawback: If one client in the middle
disconnects, you have to either drop the whole chain or "pass on" the
connection from your "child" to your "parent".
- the first client becomes a server; once again, if this one
disconnects, the other clients are left standing in the rain.

Personally, I'd go for the third way; I guess in most cases the one who
initiates the chat is less likely to leave before the others do.

Cheers,
Frank+++

"Philip M. McDonnell" wrote:
>
> > Upgrade to Jaguar and use iChat's Rendezvous feature.
>
> This is not acceptable because there are windows users on the lan as well...
>
> :(
>
> Phil

Re: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 05:11 (Tue, 27 Aug 2002 21:11:28 -0700)
From: Will Leshner
Right. Sorry for hijacking your topic. Actually, a simple peer-to-peer
chat app should be pretty easy to write in RB.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 08:32 PM, Philip M. McDonnell wrote:

> However you guys are talking about a more sophisticated project than I
> need.

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 15:35 (Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:35:54 -0400)
From: Charles Yeomans
Try http://www.glassbead.com/ .

Charles Yeomans

On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 11:32 PM, Philip M. McDonnell wrote:

> Well thank you all for your replies.
>
> However you guys are talking about a more sophisticated project than I
> need.
> Basically I need an IM for a local lan, maybe across the net
> eventually, but
> for now a local lan only IM. I don't want to have to have a server nor
> do I
> want to have to have access to the net, just a local lan.
>
> Ideas?
>


---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

RE: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 23:31 (Wed, 28 Aug 2002 18:31:59 -0400)
From: Philip M. McDonnell
> Try http://www.glassbead.com/ .

This is exactly what I am looking for but I need to have it work on PC's as
well and also I don't want a commercial app as I need to be able to get/buy
the source code. Well maybe I have to start working on an RB app for this :)

Regards,
Phil

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 05:49 (Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:49:19 -0400)
From: Chris
>Right. And additionally, I'd like people to join discussions "late" (as
>in months later) and still be able to get all the messages.

I don't think this can be done on a peer only setup. The problem is one
of storage capacity, and verifying that the last server is still online.
I like the idea of the first client is the server, and passes duties to
another client when logging off, but what happens when all clients log
off... who becomes the server? If the last client that was the "server"
fails to log back on, future clients can't pick up the thread.

Also, if you are talking about longer term retention (or any retention of
active threads), you will quickly saturate a dialup client's bandwidth,
as it tries to handle server duty, or issue out thread updates.

But, maybe you could build off the NNTP concept, where many servers
mirror the same threads, so no one server has to be online in order to
get a complete record. You could setup a new "WLCP" server (Will Leshner
Chat Protocol), when you want to offer a server, and that server can look
to other WLCP servers and mirror off each other, and decide what threads
they want to carry, and how long to retain old threads. Then a given
client need only connect to one server, and if they don't like the
threads carried, they can go find another server.

-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Peer to Peer Messaging
Date: 28.08.02 07:57 (Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:57:44 -0700)
From: Will Leshner
Yes. I think this is probably the best and probably only way to go. I
thought about it later and came to the conclusion that there had to be
servers in there somehow. I'd forgotten that aspect of NNTP, but it
does it in quite nicely.

Thanks.

On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 09:49 PM, Chris wrote:

> But, maybe you could build off the NNTP concept, where many servers
> mirror the same threads, so no one server has to be online in order to
> get a complete record. You could setup a new "WLCP" server (Will
> Leshner
> Chat Protocol), when you want to offer a server, and that server can
> look
> to other WLCP servers and mirror off each other, and decide what
> threads
> they want to carry, and how long to retain old threads. Then a given
> client need only connect to one server, and if they don't like the
> threads carried, they can go find another server.

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>