A Rafael D Teixeira
Thu, 03 Feb 2005 20:06:00 -0200
Oh, I forgot to say that even if your server's internet configuration
would allow thousands of live connections being kept, you will have a
much lower limit set by the number of concurrent worker threads
(defaults for some hundreds and is further limited by memory) to service
your ASP.NET requests...
On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 19:57, A Rafael D Teixeira wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 19:14, Alain Perry wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:51:47 -0800 (PST), Joe Audette
> > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > I don't think you should and probably can't keep a connection alive in a web
> > > page.
> > > The web is a stateless environment you request a page, you get a page,
> > > you're done.
> > It indeed is. But the method described (push) enables it to be. It is
> > still necessary to send dummy text to keep the connection alive from
> > time to time, much like a noop in FTP. But it is possible. An example
> > of this is the software that I was using until it became non-free to
> > do what my software will do. It was called webmessenger, was written
> > non-free (as in GPL) version for free (as in gratis) at jabbix.com.
> > > I would suggest you can make additional requests as needed inside an IFrame
> > > so the outer page is not refreshed but the page in the IFrame can carry on a
> > > dialog back and forth with the server using multiple requests.
> > This is called polling, and is not an efficient method either. I do
> > prefer the push method a lot.
> Push is a scalability killer. As ASP.NET and JSP are geared towards
> scalability, they don't match well your requirement.
> ASP.NET is built upon extensive use of the postback method, what means
> that your previous connection will normally get dropped every time the
> user click or even type something in the page.
> Polling is much better supported in ASP.NET/JSP.
> If you really really want to cripple your web server (it is even worse
> for a server farm, as PUSH connections, will make load balancing
> unattainable), I suggest you to develop an asp.net handler (.ASHX) that
> is free of the postback paradigm, but I would put it's returns on a
> hidden IFRAME anyway, so that you don't have to lose the RAD features of
> the .ASPX pages when designing them.
> > Thanks anyway,
Rafael "Monoman" Teixeira
Mono Hacker since 16 Jul 2001 - http://www.go-mono.org/
Mono Brasil Founding Member - http://monobrasil.redesolbrasil.org/
English Blog: http://monoblog.blogspot.com/
Brazilian Portuguese Blog: http://monoblog.weblogger.terra.com.br/