BlazeDS does exactly what your custom solution does (Albeit more stably). The only caveat is that you would need a Java Servlet container (eg. Tomcat, JBoss) and you would need to learn Java.
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Sean Clark Hess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok, that's what I thought about WebORB. We were using a custom polling > mechanism before switching to sockets -- the delay was annoying, which is > why we switched. > > Are you saying that BlazeDS uses http persistent connections? You're right, > that could get annoying. It doesn't make any sense to use persistent > connections with apache or another large-scale HTTP server. My socket > server bypasses apache and just uses TCP/IP and the Socket class to open as > many persistent connections as I need. Since the communication is so > lightweight (no files, or even real data passed), it shouldn't be a big deal > to have hundreds or thousands of persistent connections at a time. Any time > it needs to pass big data, it just stores it in the db, messages the > recipients, who get it through a standard HTTP service. > > So far, our custom solution seems to be the best, since messages are sent > fairly infrequently, but we want them to show up instantaneously. A 2 or 4 > second poll per client, with each one accessing the database can get hairy > pretty fast. > > Thanks > ~sean > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:51 AM, valdhor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As far as I understand WebORB, it uses a pseudo push mechanism. The > > client actively polls for any new data. (I could be wrong about this. > > Please let me know if I am. I am basing my assumptions on forum posts > > - eg. http://www.themidnightcoders.com/forum/default.aspx?g=posts&t=505). > > > > If you don't like active polling, look at BlazeDS. > > > > I use an active poll in my applications but I do it once every 30 > > minutes (It's just to alert users of any news they need to know). > > > > I don't know if I like the non polling solution. It means that you > > have to open a persistent connection to the server and sooner or later > > you will run out of connections. > > > > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>, "Sean > > Clark Hess" <seanhess@> wrote: > > > > > > Does WebORB use sockets? I thought it was an http connection, but I > > could > > > be mistaken. If there's a better way, I'd be happy to switch, but I > > couldn't > > > find anything. The current system is VERY lightweight, and it's quite > > > unlikely that WebORB is faster, but it might be a lot more stable -- I > > > definitely want to look into it. > > > > > > Our needs are > > > 1) Messaging between clients (Push to client) > > > 2) Speed (for lightweight messages) > > > > > > Does WebORB do #1? > > > > > > I looked at the example you posted -- Yes, it is very easy to send > > JSON to > > > PHP and get a JSON response -- we are doing this elsewhere. But > > HTTPService > > > is, well, HTTP -- the server can't push data back to the client. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > ~sean > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:42 AM, valdhor <stevedepp@> wrote: > > > > > > > I can't help you with your problem but do wonder why you felt > > the need > > > > to create your own socket system to implement JSON to PHP. > > > > > > > > AFAIK there are a number of solutions for this (eg. > > > > > > > > > > > > http://blog.paranoidferret.com/index.php/2007/08/24/flex-php-json-mysql-advanced-updating/ > > > > ). > > > > > > > > Also, WebORB with AMF3 is a much simpler (And probably faster) > > > > solution for getting data to and from Flex/PHP. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com><flexcoders% > > 40yahoogroups.com>, > > "Sean > > > > Clark Hess" <seanhess@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello coders! > > > > > > > > > > This is my first question to the list, so go easy on me, alright? :) > > > > > > > > > > I spent quite a while developing a good socket system that > > > > communicated with > > > > > PHP via JSON. It uses the Socket class (since that's the only way > > > > you can > > > > > do it, as far as I'm aware). It works perfectly now, with one small > > > > > caveat. > > > > > > > > > > When testing it on machines with r45 of FP9 installed, it didn't > > > > connect. > > > > > I'm not sure which version started working, but I think it works on > > > > r115 > > > > > and r124. As far as I can tell, the connect event just never fires. > > > > The > > > > > policy file request goes through fine, but the socket server > > never hears > > > > > from the connection request. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > ~sean > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
