How reliable are the statistics from w3schools? (
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp). It is stated in this
page http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_explorer.asp that IE6 users
are about 0.1% of the total Internet users.
When I first began web development I always tried to
> FWIW, in my case I fall back to polling every 10s in case websockets
> are not supported. However, as soon as IE9 penetration drops to an
> insignificant level I will stop with fallbacks.
>
Make a user agent statistic from your users, or try to obtain data about
your target audience.
Rumour is,
FWIW, in my case I fall back to polling every 10s in case websockets
are not supported. However, as soon as IE9 penetration drops to an
insignificant level I will stop with fallbacks.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:11 PM, wrote:
> Seems like we have a similar goal, Amaury! Cool :)
>
>> On Mon, Jul
Seems like we have a similar goal, Amaury! Cool :)
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 03:52:42AM -0700, Amaury Hernández Ãguila wrote:
>> Yeah that would be nice. So, isn't that a good reason to have websockets
>> in
>> PocoLisp?
>
> I would not say so. In a video game you have so much continuous
> commu
Yes but that's a residential subscription, before we moved to
co-location we used fasthosts.co.uk (highly recommended if you don't
do the kind of realtime stuff I do at work).
With fasthosts you get "unlimited" speed and transfers but when you do
what we do you quickly realize that it doesn't work
Hi Henrik,
> 44KB / second is far from insignificant IMO, it works out to 0.35
> Mbit/s if I'm not mistaken, we're paying 20 EUR per month per 1Mbit at
> our current co-location. Well worth spending a couple of days to avoid
> permanently.
wow, 20 EUR per 1Mbit? 160 EUR per 1MByte? In 2014? I
44KB / second is far from insignificant IMO, it works out to 0.35
Mbit/s if I'm not mistaken, we're paying 20 EUR per month per 1Mbit at
our current co-location. Well worth spending a couple of days to avoid
permanently.
Plus, the goal is to have much much more people logged in in the future.
On
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 03:52:42AM -0700, Amaury Hernández Águila wrote:
> Yeah that would be nice. So, isn't that a good reason to have websockets in
> PocoLisp?
I would not say so. In a video game you have so much continuous
communication going on (most notably the stream of image frames), that
Yeah that would be nice. So, isn't that a good reason to have websockets in
PocoLisp?
El jul 14, 2014 3:49 AM, "Alexander Burger" escribió:
> Hi Amaury,
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 03:26:15AM -0700, Amaury Hernández Águila wrote:
> > How about a browser videogame? Developing videogames in PicoLis
Hi Amaury,
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 03:26:15AM -0700, Amaury Hernández Águila wrote:
> How about a browser videogame? Developing videogames in PicoLisp would be
> great. I think I'll start one tomorrow.
Really? That would be great! I suspect there are many people here
interested to help.
♪♫ Alex
How about a browser videogame? Developing videogames in PicoLisp would be
great. I think I'll start one tomorrow.
El jul 14, 2014 3:21 AM, "Alexander Burger" escribió:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:02:10PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
> > with a size of 449 bytes. This is less than the default T
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:02:10PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
> with a size of 449 bytes. This is less than the default TCP packet size
> of 1152 bytes, so a headerless protcoll wouldn't save anything here.
Sorry, forget that! I think there is no default TCP packet size :)
Anyway, we are not t
Hi Tomas,
> thing like the example from Alex, then the amount of work on the server
> seems rather small and avoiding sending HTTP headers seems like
> pointless micro-optimization.
True. The posts caused by the +Auto button are
POST /55319/29110032894590418~!jsForm?!chat?*Menu=+0&*Tab=+1&*ID
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:41:08AM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
> Not such a big problem. If I measure the described chat client, pinging
> every 2 seconds, I get 335 Bytes per second on the average. This amounts
> to 65 kB per second for 200 clients. Not a big problem today. Typically
Oops, no!
Hi Henrik and Alex,
Henrik Sarvell writes:
> Hi Alex, doesn't all that polling you're doing introduce a lot of
> unnecessary requests to the server.
>
> There can be up to 200 persons logged in at the same time at the site
> where I'm using websockets now, that would be 100 HTTP POSTS per
> secon
Hi Henrik,
> There can be up to 200 persons logged in at the same time at the site
> where I'm using websockets now, that would be 100 HTTP POSTS per
> second with full HTTP headers etc just to check for notifications that
> perhaps 1 or 2 of them would get per 10 seconds.
Not such a big problem.
Hi Alex, doesn't all that polling you're doing introduce a lot of
unnecessary requests to the server.
There can be up to 200 persons logged in at the same time at the site
where I'm using websockets now, that would be 100 HTTP POSTS per
second with full HTTP headers etc just to check for notificat
17 matches
Mail list logo
