On Sun, Jan 16, 2000 at 05:47:50PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > And even if you didn't mind doing that, then
> > > events of interest could be reported using a prompt which conveyed the
> > > same information as "You have a pending event". So you'd either be
> > > executing a command, or else you'd be running the "wait for event"
> > > command.
> >
> > Or polling, which the server is likely to have to do anyways to retrieve
> > the events.
> polling is bad, if only becuse it leads to:
> - keeping a TCP connection open (network bandwidth)
> - keeping a server process alive (memory, OS resources)
But the methodology described above does exactly this. The question
was, poll the server explicitly, or have the server poll and send
notifications, both over an open channel.
Inactive open connections do not cause significant bandwidth loss, and
server processes should be simple enough to reduce memory pressure.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
