Re: Asynchronous xmit

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #13,397 by admin 10/15/01 2:43:32 PM Reply	Re: Asynchronous xmit Open an "endless" HTTP session in a hidden frame (or in another "pop-up" style window) and use that for communication back from the server. If you need to communicate to the server, do another POST. The server connection sends back Javascript commands to the hidden frame that are executed as they arrive. There are some intricacies (batching commands for efficiency and the like) but those are the basics. It's actually pretty simple. If that isn't sufficient, you can use a Java applet for two-way communication instead. It doesn't seem necessary, however. Regards, -scott anderson
Post #13,414 by ChrisR 10/15/01 4:25:27 PM Reply	Thanks... I thought that's what you & TSEliot were discussing - I just couldn't tell whether that's the route you took. In my case, I don't really want to use applets because of various issues (firewalls, JVM versioning, etc). I have been doing some popup browsers that synchronize and redraw the display based on operator input for the popup browser - but only to a limited extent for a few of the easier screens. Sooner or later, I need to account for having multiple users hitting the same info and updating all the attached clients as the database information is modified.
Post #13,416 by admin 10/15/01 4:47:18 PM Reply	We're using it for updates... Thousands of clients at a time. We have an in-house messaging server that is connected to by the endless servlet pushing the JS. Regards, -scott anderson

Stopping the browser throbber - (admin) - (159) - Sept. 17, 2001, 12:16:58 PM EDT

"This is the page that never ends... - (Fearless Freep) - (2) - Sept. 17, 2001, 01:15:04 PM EDT

Prescient - (kmself) - (1) - Oct. 22, 2001, 07:43:32 PM EDT

Just have someone call - (imric) - Oct. 22, 2001, 08:03:14 PM EDT

Infinite content or just infinite wait? - (tseliot) - (139) - Sept. 17, 2001, 01:29:38 PM EDT

Wrong angle :-) - (admin) - (138) - Sept. 17, 2001, 01:55:16 PM EDT

Ahhhh. Circumventing another man's app by DESIGN. - (tseliot) - (137) - Sept. 17, 2001, 03:11:12 PM EDT

Don't control the deployment that much. - (admin) - (136) - Sept. 17, 2001, 03:17:30 PM EDT

Well, sure. - (tseliot) - (3) - Sept. 17, 2001, 04:17:29 PM EDT

One connection per session regardless. - (admin) - (2) - Sept. 17, 2001, 04:27:10 PM EDT

Feh. - (pwhysall) - (1) - Sept. 18, 2001, 06:21:14 PM EDT

ROFL - (admin) - Sept. 18, 2001, 11:02:17 PM EDT

Auto refresh? - (tablizer) - (131) - Oct. 3, 2001, 02:28:23 PM EDT

Re: Auto refresh? - (pwhysall) - (2) - Oct. 3, 2001, 02:33:41 PM EDT

...which should be subject to user override - (kmself) - (1) - Oct. 3, 2001, 06:34:33 PM EDT

We are talking B-to-B or intranet, right? - (tablizer) - Oct. 5, 2001, 07:10:35 PM EDT

The application uses auto refresh now. - (admin) - (127) - Oct. 3, 2001, 04:39:53 PM EDT

Why is auto-refresh not satisfactory? - (tablizer) - (125) - Oct. 5, 2001, 07:18:25 PM EDT

Because I work on actual large scale applications. - (admin) - (124) - Oct. 7, 2001, 10:45:43 PM EDT

depends on needed refresh rate - (tablizer) - (123) - Oct. 8, 2001, 04:28:07 PM EDT

Re: depends on needed refresh rate - (admin) - (122) - Oct. 8, 2001, 04:39:16 PM EDT

Nothing is truely "instant" - (tablizer) - (121) - Oct. 9, 2001, 12:36:45 PM EDT

Re: Nothing is truely "instant" - (admin) - (95) - Oct. 9, 2001, 02:14:14 PM EDT

JavaScript but *not* client-side script? - (tablizer) - (94) - Oct. 10, 2001, 03:39:19 PM EDT

Re: JavaScript but *not* client-side script? - (admin) - (93) - Oct. 10, 2001, 03:46:31 PM EDT

that is still client-side script/applet - (tablizer) - (92) - Oct. 10, 2001, 10:42:52 PM EDT

Fundamental disconnect - (Yendor) - Oct. 11, 2001, 01:48:36 AM EDT

Re: that is still client-side script/applet - (admin) - (90) - Oct. 11, 2001, 10:02:35 AM EDT

"generic" by what scope? - (tablizer) - (89) - Oct. 11, 2001, 02:06:01 PM EDT

Re: "generic" by what scope? - (admin) - (88) - Oct. 11, 2001, 03:57:51 PM EDT

security risks - (tablizer) - (87) - Oct. 12, 2001, 09:28:23 PM EDT

Re: security risks - (pwhysall) - (77) - Oct. 14, 2001, 05:37:59 AM EDT

Turing-complete == more-problems-complete - (tablizer) - (76) - Oct. 14, 2001, 03:21:04 PM EDT

Re: Turing-complete == more-problems-complete - (pwhysall) - (48) - Oct. 14, 2001, 03:28:33 PM EDT

Using 3 protocols is just plain silly, admit it! - (tablizer) - (47) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:26:41 PM EDT

Patently false: DHTML is not the same as DOM - (admin) - (2) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:38:17 PM EDT

I did not say it was - (tablizer) - (1) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:48:48 PM EDT

JS/DOM is not the same as DHTML. - (admin) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:58:11 PM EDT

Patently false: three different protocols - (admin) - (22) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:38:44 PM EDT

How does that make any difference? Browser still deals w/ 3 -NT - (tablizer) - (21) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:50:31 PM EDT

How does that make any difference? Developer still deals w/1 -NT - (admin) - (20) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:59:23 PM EDT

NOPE, 2 - (tablizer) - (19) - Oct. 16, 2001, 11:20:03 PM EDT

Same in SCGUI. - (admin) - (18) - Oct. 17, 2001, 09:24:50 AM EDT

odd counting - (tablizer) - (17) - Oct. 17, 2001, 04:23:03 PM EDT

Re: odd counting - yes, you do count oddly. - (admin) - (16) - Oct. 17, 2001, 06:18:59 PM EDT

assumption missing - (tablizer) - (15) - Oct. 18, 2001, 12:51:13 AM EDT

That's even nuttier for you - (pwhysall) - (1) - Oct. 18, 2001, 02:56:45 AM EDT

Clarification - (pwhysall) - Oct. 18, 2001, 03:07:05 AM EDT

Re: assumption missing - (pwhysall) - (12) - Oct. 18, 2001, 03:00:53 AM EDT

Cytrix is NOT latency-friendly, and.... - (tablizer) - (11) - Oct. 19, 2001, 12:47:16 AM EDT

Yes it bloody well is! - (pwhysall) - (10) - Oct. 19, 2001, 03:18:56 AM EDT

HTTP is important - (tablizer) - (9) - Oct. 20, 2001, 02:42:11 AM EDT

Bollocks - (pwhysall) - (8) - Oct. 20, 2001, 04:52:02 AM EDT

I saw it happen - (tablizer) - (3) - Oct. 20, 2001, 02:43:55 PM EDT

Get a room guys... -NT - (bepatient) - Oct. 20, 2001, 02:49:47 PM EDT

And that proves what? - (pwhysall) - Oct. 20, 2001, 03:09:14 PM EDT

One last thing - (pwhysall) - Oct. 20, 2001, 03:13:17 PM EDT

Actually Bryce has a point here - (ben_tilly) - (3) - Oct. 21, 2001, 02:14:16 AM EDT

But I'm wondering how relevant it is. - (static) - (2) - Oct. 21, 2001, 09:10:27 AM EDT

It is at least halfway - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Oct. 22, 2001, 08:14:12 AM EDT

Not quite irrelevent... - (addison) - Oct. 22, 2001, 12:54:48 PM EDT

Patently false: HTML/DOM/JS requires full page reloads - (admin) - (4) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:39:46 PM EDT

Sorry, I misread it. - (tablizer) - (3) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:54:25 PM EDT

Once again: strawman alert - (admin) - (2) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:00:27 PM EDT

so you say - (tablizer) - (1) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:20:52 PM EDT

Re: so you say - (admin) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:30:05 PM EDT

Only one protocol in use - (pwhysall) - (2) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:39:56 PM EDT

wrapping is not ridding - (tablizer) - (1) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:56:52 PM EDT

Well I never - (pwhysall) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:59:15 PM EDT

Patently false: SCGUI is immune to versioning problems - (admin) - (9) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:40:27 PM EDT

dancing widgets - (tablizer) - (8) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:12:34 PM EDT

SCGUI: moving the complexity to the server. - (admin) - (7) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:17:39 PM EDT

VB, Delphi, Powerbuilder, etc. - (tablizer) - (6) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:30:25 PM EDT

Once again, where is the value-add? - (admin) - (5) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:37:37 PM EDT

same arguments over and over - (tablizer) - (4) - Oct. 16, 2001, 12:06:28 AM EDT

I'll agree with that. - (admin) - (3) - Oct. 16, 2001, 09:35:03 AM EDT

So at least you agree that they want GUI's - (tablizer) - (2) - Oct. 16, 2001, 02:33:36 PM EDT

Re: So at least you agree that they want GUI's - (pwhysall) - (1) - Oct. 16, 2001, 02:39:30 PM EDT

and YOU don't have to present code examples? -NT - (tablizer) - Oct. 16, 2001, 11:20:57 PM EDT

Patently false: DOM/JS is too complex - (admin) - (1) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:40:58 PM EDT

"Come here! I'll bite you to death" -NT - (pwhysall) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:45:42 PM EDT

No, it's not. - (static) - Oct. 15, 2001, 10:30:40 PM EDT

Re: Turing-complete == more-problems-complete - (admin) - (26) - Oct. 15, 2001, 10:03:02 AM EDT

The "assembler" argument again - (tablizer) - (21) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:07:33 PM EDT

And your proof is? - (admin) - (20) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:27:21 PM EDT

first choice? really really? first? - (tablizer) - (19) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:45:15 PM EDT

Er, gotcha? - (admin) - (18) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:56:17 PM EDT

Lame first choice - (tablizer) - (17) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:44:35 PM EDT

Sez you. - (admin) - (16) - Oct. 15, 2001, 03:24:56 PM EDT

Grid? - (tablizer) - (15) - Oct. 16, 2001, 12:12:18 AM EDT

Re: Grid? - (admin) - (14) - Oct. 16, 2001, 09:21:28 AM EDT

more to grids than that - (tablizer) - (13) - Oct. 16, 2001, 11:28:54 PM EDT

Re: more to grids than that - (admin) - (12) - Oct. 17, 2001, 09:29:10 AM EDT

Frame == Grid? Egad! - (tablizer) - (11) - Oct. 17, 2001, 04:17:32 PM EDT

What's "Half-ess"? Half an S? -NT - (pwhysall) - (10) - Oct. 17, 2001, 06:46:06 PM EDT

Reply re: S/2 - (tablizer) - (9) - Oct. 18, 2001, 12:40:42 AM EDT

Don't swear then - (pwhysall) - (8) - Oct. 18, 2001, 02:55:33 AM EDT

anyhow, anybdy still wanna defend frames as grid substute? -NT - (tablizer) - (7) - Oct. 19, 2001, 12:42:47 AM EDT

Not frames, frame. - (admin) - (6) - Oct. 19, 2001, 09:29:07 AM EDT

problems with that approach - (tablizer) - (5) - Oct. 20, 2001, 02:47:09 AM EDT

Nobody is defending "frames == grid" after all these weeks - (tablizer) - (4) - Nov. 8, 2001, 11:23:21 PM EST

Bryce - (pwhysall) - (3) - Nov. 9, 2001, 05:42:46 AM EST

I will bet you $100.00 - (tablizer) - (2) - Nov. 9, 2001, 02:45:53 PM EST

I don't care - (pwhysall) - (1) - Nov. 9, 2001, 05:29:28 PM EST

And stop it with the "listen" sh8t - (tablizer) - Nov. 11, 2001, 09:57:59 PM EST

Asynchronous xmit - (ChrisR) - (3) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:38:11 PM EDT

Re: Asynchronous xmit - (admin) - (2) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:43:32 PM EDT

Thanks... - (ChrisR) - (1) - Oct. 15, 2001, 04:25:27 PM EDT

We're using it for updates... - (admin) - Oct. 15, 2001, 04:47:18 PM EDT

Re: security risks - (admin) - (8) - Oct. 15, 2001, 09:59:21 AM EDT

Skinny client, skinny needs - (tablizer) - (7) - Oct. 15, 2001, 12:59:26 PM EDT

Re: Skinny client, skinny needs - (pwhysall) - (6) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:09:15 PM EDT

The "assembler" argument again - (tablizer) - (5) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:33:40 PM EDT

Your "point of view" - (admin) - (4) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:40:19 PM EDT

I dn't care whthr it's new nor not. It is better than JS+DOM -NT - (tablizer) - (1) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:46:54 PM EDT

You have yet to demonstrate that. -NT - (admin) - Oct. 15, 2001, 02:56:39 PM EDT

Re: Your "point of view" - (addison) - (1) - Oct. 22, 2001, 01:06:47 PM EDT

"Plug-in"? Uhm, isn't that called an X Server...? -NT - (CRConrad) - Oct. 22, 2001, 06:47:47 PM EDT

I can see I'm going to have to go back to this again. - (admin) - (24) - Oct. 10, 2001, 03:54:25 PM EDT

This is *not* an OO battle.......yet - (tablizer) - (23) - Oct. 10, 2001, 10:50:27 PM EDT

I think I'd give up, Bryce. - (static) - Oct. 11, 2001, 12:47:18 AM EDT

Funny... I could have sworn you said: - (admin) - (21) - Oct. 11, 2001, 10:06:43 AM EDT

"doable" is not the criteria I am using. - (tablizer) - (20) - Oct. 11, 2001, 02:00:52 PM EDT

ROFL - (admin) - (19) - Oct. 11, 2001, 04:02:25 PM EDT

not GUI. QED - (tablizer) - (18) - Oct. 12, 2001, 09:37:20 PM EDT

Nothing like answering the question, eh? - (pwhysall) - (2) - Oct. 14, 2001, 06:36:05 AM EDT

and you did NOT answer my question - (tablizer) - (1) - Oct. 14, 2001, 03:23:37 PM EDT

Because... - (pwhysall) - Oct. 14, 2001, 03:30:24 PM EDT

Ideal? No. Better than SCGUI? Yes. - (admin) - (14) - Oct. 15, 2001, 09:53:24 AM EDT

HTML + DOM + JS is a fricken mess - (tablizer) - (13) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:36:57 PM EDT

A little challenge - (pwhysall) - (6) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:42:40 PM EDT

user interface - (tablizer) - (5) - Oct. 16, 2001, 01:31:47 AM EDT

Re: user interface - (pwhysall) - (4) - Oct. 16, 2001, 03:03:35 AM EDT

Because nobody wants to use that crap for GUI's - (tablizer) - (3) - Oct. 16, 2001, 02:44:02 PM EDT

Re: Because nobody wants to use that crap for GUI's - (pwhysall) - (2) - Oct. 16, 2001, 02:48:40 PM EDT

Forgot one. - (pwhysall) - Oct. 16, 2001, 02:51:32 PM EDT

sloppy counting - (tablizer) - Oct. 16, 2001, 11:38:32 PM EDT

A little challenge - (pwhysall) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:43:12 PM EDT

Re: HTML + DOM + JS is a fricken mess - (admin) - (4) - Oct. 15, 2001, 01:48:10 PM EDT

starting a new road when traffic is sufficiently high - (tablizer) - (3) - Oct. 16, 2001, 11:52:44 PM EDT

Re: starting a new road when traffic is sufficiently high - (admin) - (2) - Oct. 17, 2001, 09:27:29 AM EDT

I have to disagree with your #2 response -NT - (tablizer) - (1) - Oct. 17, 2001, 04:19:24 PM EDT

No, you don't "have to". You just do so anyway. -NT - (CRConrad) - Oct. 18, 2001, 08:23:34 AM EDT

I'll have a large anchovy pizza, please. -NT - (pwhysall) - Oct. 30, 2002, 02:14:03 PM EST

Can you replace the frame with server-side push? -NT - (ben_tilly) - (6) - Sept. 17, 2001, 03:31:48 PM EDT

Meaning? - (admin) - (5) - Sept. 17, 2001, 03:40:22 PM EDT

I thought it did but... - (ben_tilly) - (4) - Sept. 17, 2001, 04:35:55 PM EDT

The object is to avoid opening a connection every second. - (admin) - (3) - Sept. 17, 2001, 04:52:50 PM EDT

40 per second? Faster than a MOVIE - (tablizer) - (2) - Oct. 9, 2001, 12:43:51 PM EDT

Re: 40 per second? Faster than a MOVIE - (admin) - (1) - Oct. 9, 2001, 02:17:19 PM EDT

From the mouth of.. erm.. babes. - (addison) - Oct. 22, 2001, 12:59:40 PM EDT

Synchronized browsing? - (ChrisR) - (4) - Sept. 17, 2001, 04:45:26 PM EDT

That might not be a bad idea... - (admin) - (2) - Sept. 17, 2001, 04:54:27 PM EDT

Simpler than that... - (ChrisR) - (1) - Sept. 17, 2001, 05:02:20 PM EDT

Gah. :-) - (admin) - Sept. 17, 2001, 05:14:10 PM EDT

I just said that (above)!! Copycat! :D -NT - (tseliot) - Sept. 17, 2001, 07:41:13 PM EDT

Re: Stopping the browser throbber - (dshellman) - (3) - Oct. 30, 2002, 03:09:50 PM EST

Re: Stopping the browser throbber - (admin) - (2) - Oct. 30, 2002, 03:15:10 PM EST

Re: Stopping the browser throbber - (dshellman) - (1) - Oct. 30, 2002, 03:41:42 PM EST

Re: Stopping the browser throbber (new thread) - (admin) - Oct. 30, 2002, 03:46:00 PM EST

They're the very devil to clean out of the radiator.
193 ms