> You'd still have to use a loop (assuming you're not interested in a > design-driven solution like JMS or another event-driven model), but you > can make it less tight by checking every X ms instead of all the time, > and you can do it in a separate thread that you spawn. Unlike the > server threads, you'd own that thread so you could sleep or wait it as > needed. [Robert Harper] I still need to know how I am to wait without burning the CPU while I am waiting for a response. I would rather not have to have the web page have to keep checking back for a response.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
