Thanks for the reply but polling is not an option in my case because my server will be sending extremely time sensitive messages. Even if it arrives 5 seconds late, it's useless.
On Oct 8, 12:09 pm, Randolpho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "institution some sort of polling mechanism"? > > Sometimes I think a monkey randomly beating on a keyboard would have > better grammar than me. > > On Oct 8, 2:07 pm, Randolpho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I can think of a dozen, and not one of them are related to battery > > life at all. > > > A persistent connection, generally speaking, isn't a good idea. In > > some cases it can be a valid solution, but most of the time, you're > > better off institution some sort of polling mechanism. > > > I suggest a web service that your background service polls > > periodically for updates. You can make the period suitably small to > > make it *seem* like a push to the user, even though it's not; it'll be > > good not just for your users but for your servers. Persistent > > connections take resources, and you'll soon find the need for way more > > servers than you can afford if you insist on persistent connections. > > > On Oct 8, 1:04 pm, j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I would like to maintain a persistent socket connection to a server > > > via my background Service. The reason is I want to be able to push > > > notification data to client with minimal delay. Is there any problem > > > with this approach besides negative effects on the battery? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
