I think this is more a limitation of the same origin security model imposed on XMLHttpRequest which Gears also honors with their implementation. I would imagine that Google would have to think long an hard before relaxing that model. Having said that people do implement backup servers by embedding communication in an iFrame which has a less restrictive model such that you can communicate with an iframe that is on a sub-domain.
So to implement the "backup server model" you would setup a primary domain (say myservice.com) and implement two sub-domains (server1.myservice.com and server2.myservice.com). Then put your communications code in two iFrames. If you lose a connection to one just switch to the other. On Oct 18, 6:14 pm, Rml1997 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Which bit does zoho do with gears? > I don't think it allows secondary servers to be supported as this > would have to be within gears. > > On Oct 18, 8:56 pm, jfayel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > zoho does it... with gears... > > > On Oct 17, 11:09 pm, Austin Chau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > Thank you for your suggestion. We will take them into consideration! > > > > Cheers, > > > Austin > > > > On Oct 17, 9:37 am, Rml1997 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Google gears has the potential to revolutionise applications. When a > > > > server goes down, local clients have a problem if they change the same > > > > data in offline mode or need to carry on collaborating. By offering a > > > > client with backend capabilities, new opportunities arise. The problem > > > > when a server goes down is that communication between the server and > > > > client is lost. If however a secondary server can be located and > > > > synchronised with, this would facilitate the continued use of the > > > > application without loss of syncronisation. When the primary server > > > > comes back online, the secondary server simply resyncs its data, or > > > > becomes primary. This maintains sync between clients at all times. > > > > Given that all clients are themselves servers, it is also possible to > > > > nominate a sync server within the visible group, to reflect all their > > > > changes. For example, say gmail goes down. In a current gears enabled > > > > version of gmail, the clients on a local network would all be able to > > > > view their own mail. However, new email could not be sent even across > > > > the internal network which is still functioning. If gears was able to > > > > function as a server not just for itself as it does currently, but had > > > > peer to peer communications, it would be able to continue > > > > communication internally, resyncing when gmail came back online. If > > > > you could do this please, it would make me happy and stop people > > > > whining when gmail goes down. Thanks, Rob- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
