Maxim
Wed Nov 19 23:28:16 CST 2003
I expect TDI to match the network packet processing well.
--
Maxim Shatskih, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Corporation
maxim@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com
"Thomas F. Divine" <pcausa@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uOSEr5srDHA.1740@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> My thought is that unless you want your propritary protocol to be a "first
> class" protocol that would be widely used by thrid parties via Winsock, then
> a TDI interface would be unnecessary overkill.
>
> If your propritary protocol is simple, invent a robust and simple interface
> of your own.
>
> Thomas F. Divine
> www.rawether.net
>
> "QuasiCodo" <no_spam_BillAlexander@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uiAPJ$rrDHA.2304@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > Thomas:
> >
> > We are writing a WDM driver stack for a Multiport-Serial-Port Hub.
> > Communications to the MPS hub is either over TCP/IP or over our own
> > proprietary protocol. For our proprietary protocol, we thought that we
> > would implement it with a TDI interface so that it is similar to the
> > interface of TCP. For example, when we make a connection, we call
> > TdiBuildConnect() and IoCallDriver().
> >
> > We could make the protocol driver with a custom interface. For example,
> > IRP_MJ_CREATE could be used to create a connection to a specified MPS hub.
> > This would much simpler than TDI.
> >
> > The protocol is not that complex. It has sequence/acknowledgement with a
> > window of one. It is very simple.
> >
> > I'm just researching the feasibility of putting a TDI interface onto the
> > protocol. Looks like LOTS of work.
> >
> > Thx
> >
> > ((&-<
> >
> >
>
>