Arguments for stateless protocols (context: simple point-to-point communication)

Question

(So this question was asked before , but in a general sense, and most of the answers were in the context of general network communications with several servers / clients / etc.).

In the context of a simple point-to-point protocol, what are the advantages / disadvantages of stateless and stateless state protocols? . My instinct is that it's better to have stateless people (with lots of HTTP exposure) with simple batches of response commands, but I'm not sure why. I also work with a supervisor who has a lot of experience using state protocols with serial numbers, connection methods, etc., and he continues to encourage me to use the state protocol. We are at a dead end and cannot convince each other of the right approach.

Another question about simple point-to-point communication protocols has given some good examples, namely HDLC (stateful) and MODBUS (stateless).

Answer 1

If you look at the protocol from an interactive point of view, this can make it easier.

There is no “Hello” or “Goodbye” in a stateless protocol. Each request is simply “Give me this,” “Take it,” or the like, and each request is on it. If the client gives something to the server, it does not matter what the server does to it. If the client needs to know about what he just gave the server, he will ask him to check again.

This (statelessness) sounds good, and it is good for two independent processes (server and client), especially if they are loosely coupled.

, , , , , , , .

, . "scapel", , , . "stateful" , "scapel" "" " " . - - "" " ". , .

"/" - ?