On Wednesday 26 April 2006 21:32, Tim Churches wrote: > 3) Your presentation asserts that polling of service providers to > determine whether new messages are available for pick-up is undesirable > or impractical. Is it? The set-up/respond/tear-down time for a > connection from a general practice to, say, a path provider server to > determine whether there are messages waiting should be well under 10 > seconds,
Experience from classic email - where orders of magnitude more messages are processed - tells us that polling an account as a rule takes much less than a second, and that it is indeed absolutely acceptable - even preferable. People suggesting polling accounts is impractical for the purpose of exchanging reports/results are talking without thinking and without having the faintest idea of how internetworking has been working to general satisfaction for the past two decades. With email transport, we are talking about time honoured, proven, reliable and resilient technology, almost in universal use nowadays. Only thing that doesn't seem to work so easily is the cryptographic part - but only ignorant fools would believe that by choosing any other transport method this would get any easier at all. Implementation as a "real time" web service could be a nice bonus, but with the unreliability of Australian Internet connectivity for the foreseeable future I would never want to depend on anything that doesn't support store-and-forward as a fallback method. Horst _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
