Just remember--anything manual can be automated

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #121,981 by FuManChu 10/20/03 11:05:20 AM Reply	Just remember--anything manual can be automated If that's the only con to sockets (and I'm inclined that way), sounds like a winnah.
Post #121,982 by admin 10/20/03 11:09:08 AM Reply	Well, that's what I meant. As is, we will have to write the code that manages the state of the socket connection. I think there's a little bit of "web services are cool, let's use those" going on here as well... personally I don't see any advantages if you are in control of both endpoints of the connection. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #122,001 by tjsinclair 10/20/03 12:00:35 PM Reply	I lean towards sockets as well I haven't tried JMS but socket programming in Java is pretty straightforward. Tom Sinclair "Man, I love it when the complete absence of a plan comes together." - [link\|http://radio.weblogs.com/0104634/\|Ernie the Attorney]
Post #122,006 by admin 10/20/03 12:05:20 PM Reply	Remember there's C++ on the other end. One of the (muddled, 2nd hand) reasons for the HTTP transport was a desire to have the threads managed for us. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #122,027 by folkert 10/20/03 1:21:06 PM Reply	Name one: Webserver that manages Threads nicely... Solaris with Weblogic and/or Apache2 (and recent versions only) are about the only ones I can think of that work well in that respect. But given most things are not thread safe right now... IIS claims Full threading support... but only if everything is being done with the webserver machine. Apache2 does do threading, but so many thing these days are NOT multi-thread safe YET. Prolly won't be for a few years yet. Weblogic... well if you dare delv into that one... go for it. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* Multi-Finethreaded Tagline ....................... ............... ..... ...........................
Post #122,033 by admin 10/20/03 2:06:56 PM Reply	I'm guessing the answer will be: IIS. Based on from whom the suggestion is coming. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Communication between two servers. - (admin) - (39) - Oct. 20, 2003, 09:23:06 AM EDT

SOAP - (ChrisR) - (8) - Oct. 20, 2003, 10:39:16 AM EDT

Right, that's what I'm trying to avoid. - (admin) - (1) - Oct. 20, 2003, 10:44:22 AM EDT

Welcome to my life -NT - (drewk) - Oct. 20, 2003, 10:47:47 AM EDT

Stupid Object Asskiss Protocol -NT - (tuberculosis) - (5) - Oct. 20, 2003, 02:13:48 PM EDT

SOAP is one those decent ideas... - (ChrisR) - (4) - Oct. 20, 2003, 04:13:34 PM EDT

A decent idea? - (ben_tilly) - (2) - Oct. 20, 2003, 04:49:41 PM EDT

Valid complaint - (ChrisR) - Oct. 20, 2003, 05:09:00 PM EDT

In fairness, - (Arkadiy) - Oct. 20, 2003, 07:00:33 PM EDT

No, she's a dog - (tuberculosis) - Oct. 20, 2003, 06:52:00 PM EDT

Quick alphabet soup translation: - (jb4) - (2) - Oct. 20, 2003, 10:49:48 AM EDT

Java Messaging Service - (admin) - (1) - Oct. 20, 2003, 10:51:21 AM EDT

Danke -NT - (jb4) - Oct. 20, 2003, 12:00:07 PM EDT

roll own xinted service? - (deSitter) - Oct. 20, 2003, 10:58:24 AM EDT

Just remember--anything manual can be automated - (FuManChu) - (5) - Oct. 20, 2003, 11:05:20 AM EDT

Well, that's what I meant. - (admin) - Oct. 20, 2003, 11:09:08 AM EDT

I lean towards sockets as well - (tjsinclair) - (3) - Oct. 20, 2003, 12:00:35 PM EDT

Remember there's C++ on the other end. - (admin) - (2) - Oct. 20, 2003, 12:05:20 PM EDT

Name one: - (folkert) - (1) - Oct. 20, 2003, 01:21:06 PM EDT

I'm guessing the answer will be: - (admin) - Oct. 20, 2003, 02:06:56 PM EDT

4. CORBA connection but same objection as JMS Go with socket -NT - (boxley) - Oct. 20, 2003, 11:43:09 AM EDT

My Gut reaction tells me: - (folkert) - (9) - Oct. 20, 2003, 12:01:46 PM EDT

We have plenty of socket servers here already. - (admin) - (8) - Oct. 20, 2003, 12:06:09 PM EDT

Sockets can stream, http does not, its connectionless - (boxley) - (1) - Oct. 20, 2003, 12:24:11 PM EDT

HTTP 1.1 supports pipelining, FYI. -NT - (admin) - Oct. 20, 2003, 12:46:07 PM EDT

YALOP - (folkert) - (1) - Oct. 20, 2003, 01:12:26 PM EDT

Agreed - (deSitter) - Oct. 20, 2003, 01:19:38 PM EDT

Why not HTTP? - (tablizer) - (3) - Oct. 24, 2003, 11:06:10 PM EDT

Read the problem description. - (admin) - (2) - Oct. 25, 2003, 12:19:08 AM EDT

You didn't qualify "too much overhead" - (tablizer) - (1) - Oct. 25, 2003, 05:13:44 PM EDT

Packet overhead doesn't matter. - (admin) - Oct. 25, 2003, 07:36:35 PM EDT

DECNet Mailboxes. - (pwhysall) - (2) - Oct. 20, 2003, 01:12:30 PM EDT

AHHH! NO!!! - (deSitter) - (1) - Oct. 20, 2003, 01:16:29 PM EDT

Silence, heretic. - (pwhysall) - Oct. 20, 2003, 01:23:32 PM EDT

Socket to me - (tuberculosis) - (4) - Oct. 20, 2003, 02:25:08 PM EDT

Why the daemon: - (admin) - (3) - Oct. 20, 2003, 02:56:20 PM EDT

Not an answer then, but a plan of attack :) - (FuManChu) - (2) - Oct. 20, 2003, 05:03:37 PM EDT

Complicated political situation. - (admin) - (1) - Oct. 20, 2003, 05:05:20 PM EDT

You mean you're not king? - (tuberculosis) - Oct. 20, 2003, 06:56:01 PM EDT

Tuxedo/Java Jolt? - (gdaustin) - Oct. 20, 2003, 03:11:19 PM EDT

I think I'll go for a walk.
239 ms