Re: CU-SeeMe Activity Utility (fwd) -- some concerns

Dr. Cool (drcool@halcyon.com)
Mon, 3 Oct 1994 01:25:24 -0400


At 10:45 PM 10/2/94 -0400, Dan Updegrove wrote:
>Regarding the proposal below, I have the following concerns:
>
>* Some people connected to a reflector may object to having their activity
> so widely advertised

You make a valid point, but I don't think that'll be very many people. If
they want, they can always use a different conference ID for a more private
conference.

>* Some reflectors may be subject to non-trivial polling overhead

No more than usual. My average CU-SeeMe session consists of loading it up,
then going one-by-one through my list of 9 or 10 reflector sites looking
for anything interesting. I'm usually lucky if I can find one or two.
This utility will only automate something I do anyway.

With this utility, I won't be subjecting reflectors to any more load than
normal. If anything, the utility will do what I usually do, only 5 times
faster.

Maybe when the CU programmers have no features left to program into
CU-SeeMe (that'll be the day!), they can write a small piece of code into
the reflector software that will, when opening connections to new CUSM
sessions, check for a flag identifier. This ID would only be used by the
utility, and upon seeing it, would only transmit the information needed by
the utility, and then immediately close the connection. This transaction
would probably take a second or two, and create little or no load on the
reflector.

>* Reflectors being used by a "modest" number of participants for "real work"
> may be swamped by chanel surfers looking for an "interesting" site.

Another good point I hadn't considered. By proposing this utility, I was
only hoping to make a great program a little easier to use. If it indeed
does create such problems, let's propose some answers.

- Aaron McMahon
Seattle, Washington