[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Phasing out ldm4 protocols

This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.

  • Subject: Re: Phasing out ldm4 protocols
  • Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:44:55 -0600 (MDT)
Hi Robb,



Linda Miller                            
External Liaison                        Telephone: (303) 497-8646
UCAR/Unidata Program Center             Fax: (303) 497-8690             
P.O. Box 3000                           E-mail: address@hidden
Boulder, CO 80307-3000                  http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/


On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Robb Kambic wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Glenn P. Davis wrote:
> 
> > (Continuing pruning the ldm distribution.)
> > 
> > I understand that WSI is still sending data using ldm4 protocols.
> > I also understand that there is not much we can do about this.
> > 
> This was talked about at the last AMS meeting, I didn't hear what the
> outcome was of the meeting. I relayed that the ldm4 protocol was going
> away and WSI should be made aware.  We need to refresh WSI memory about
> the ldm4 protocol situation.   WSI has a current solution, just use the
> LDM instead of their own written s/w.  The LDM has sufficient access
> controls to satisfy WSI needs.  
> 

I agree that WSI should be notified, before you decide to drop this.  I
realize that they have been told before, but could a note go out to the
ldm-users list, just in case there might be a few who are still
hanging on (as you noted below).  Perhaps you know who they are and could
contact them separately.  It just seems like it's a matter of courtesy,
before things are taken away.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Linda

> 
> > Let us define "ldm4 receive support" to mean that if someone like
> > WSI sends data to an LDM server, that it is accepted and stuck in
> > the queue as it is now. (LDM4 procedures HEREIS, COMINGSOON, & BLOCKDATA)
> > 
> > Let us further define "ldm4 transmit support"  to be the support
> > of ldm4 data sinks by an ldm server. (LDM4 procedures NOTIFYME & FEEDME)
> > 
> > Any objections to dropping "ldm4 transmit support"?
> > This means that an ldm4 downstream node could not request data from
> > an ldm5 server.
> 
> I agree, let's drop transmit support.  There might be one or two sites
> currently using ldm4 s/w.  It's hard to support these sites because the
> current version verses ldm4 are different enough plus other factors that
> support is almost impossible. Also, the ldm4 support is too time consuming
> because it would have to be built on the platform, etc.
> 
> Robb...
> 
> 
> > 
> > -glenn
> > 
> 
> ===============================================================================
> Robb Kambic                              Unidata Program Center
> Software Engineer III                    Univ. Corp for Atmospheric Research
> address@hidden                   WWW: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/
> ===============================================================================
> 
>