Ayyyyyron

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by Ayyyyyron 2y ago

   I agree with your claim, a recipient can cope with at-least-once delivery by being idempotent. You're right. The meaningful distinction is that something on the recipient needs to be idempotent because the message might get received tw
2. 2.▲
   by Ayyyyyron 2y ago

   Yes, but the handoff can fail in the same way (it can't know if the thing it's handing off to actually got it). But the application can also just be resilient to that with idempotent operations and have the handoff be at-least-onc
3. 3.▲
   by Ayyyyyron 2y ago

   But the recipient is not one atomic thing - we're assuming perfect communication between the process/driver/hardware receiving the packets and doing the duplicate detection and the process which wants to receive the message e
4. 4.▲
   by Ayyyyyron 2y ago

   The principal difference between 'at most once' and 'at least once' is whether a sender re-tries when it is unsure if the recipient has received the message. If the recipient's ack never makes it back, then a sender