Oh, I forgot to say that even if your server's internet configuration would allow thousands of live connections being kept, you will have a much lower limit set by the number of concurrent worker threads (defaults for some hundreds and is further limited by memory) to service your ASP.NET requests...
On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 19:57, A Rafael D Teixeira wrote: > On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 19:14, Alain Perry wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:51:47 -0800 (PST), Joe Audette > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't think you should and probably can't keep a connection alive in a > > > web > > > page. > > > The web is a stateless environment you request a page, you get a page, > > > you're done. > > > > It indeed is. But the method described (push) enables it to be. It is > > still necessary to send dummy text to keep the connection alive from > > time to time, much like a noop in FTP. But it is possible. An example > > of this is the software that I was using until it became non-free to > > do what my software will do. It was called webmessenger, was written > > in PHP and was using javascript push. I belive you can still try the > > non-free (as in GPL) version for free (as in gratis) at jabbix.com. > > > > > I would suggest you can make additional requests as needed inside an > > > IFrame > > > so the outer page is not refreshed but the page in the IFrame can carry > > > on a > > > dialog back and forth with the server using multiple requests. > > > > This is called polling, and is not an efficient method either. I do > > prefer the push method a lot. > > Push is a scalability killer. As ASP.NET and JSP are geared towards > scalability, they don't match well your requirement. > > ASP.NET is built upon extensive use of the postback method, what means > that your previous connection will normally get dropped every time the > user click or even type something in the page. > > Polling is much better supported in ASP.NET/JSP. > > If you really really want to cripple your web server (it is even worse > for a server farm, as PUSH connections, will make load balancing > unattainable), I suggest you to develop an asp.net handler (.ASHX) that > is free of the postback paradigm, but I would put it's returns on a > hidden IFRAME anyway, so that you don't have to lose the RAD features of > the .ASPX pages when designing them. > > > > > Thanks anyway, -- Rafael "Monoman" Teixeira Mono Hacker since 16 Jul 2001 - http://www.go-mono.org/ Mono Brasil Founding Member - http://monobrasil.redesolbrasil.org/ English Blog: http://monoblog.blogspot.com/ Brazilian Portuguese Blog: http://monoblog.weblogger.terra.com.br/ _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
