gf wrote:
А) It's possible if the timeout is big, I intend to use 0.1 as the timeout.
Blocking everything for .1 sec would be a very bad thing. Is the update supposed to be done by one of the same clients that can be hung in this wait? How does the updater distinguish itself from the rest?
B) It's possible. But the same (or lower) number of clients repeating get() every several ms run the server out of resources early.
A failing get() should only use time on the server - a resource that goes by whether you use it or not. Waiting will consume an assortment of things to maintain the state - and should be done on the clients where the resources scale up with the number of them.
-- Les Mikesell [email protected]
