On 1/3/04 2:49 PM, "Phil Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Doug Lerner >> Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 7:41 PM >> To: How to use Revolution >> Subject: Re: A message for data waiting at a socket? >> > --- snip --- >> >> What would be nicer though is if data were pushed from the other side (the >> server I am connected to) to the socket that that would send a >> message to a >> handler. That seems more dynamic and efficient and "in the spirit" of a >> message-driven system. My app could then respond whenever data arrives. >> > > Nice idea, Doug... but for the message-driven model to apply, the two stacks > (client and server) must share the same Rev session. Since they're > [presumably] on different machines, that can't happen.
Wouldn't the client just need to be aware of "something changed" on its own side? > > I suppose you could virtually join the two environments with a 'socket > reader/message dispatcher' stack running on each machine. Its job would be > to: > - receive socket data from 'the other side', translate it to Rev messages > and send them within its local Rev environment. That's sort of what I'm doing now. But rather than sending back entire Rev messages, I'm sending back command/data pairs and then parsing and processing them on the Rev side. > - receive local Rev messages, translate them to socket data and send the > data to the other environment. For that, I am turning them into an xml string, sending the string back as a parameter to the other environment which has the ability to take the string, convert it to a server-side object and then just pluck the command/data pairs out of that for processing. Then it sends results back to Rev. So immediately after a write I am invoking a read to get the results and that works fine. But sometimes the server side wants to push data through even though I haven't just written anything to it. That is what I am trying to handle. Right now I am dealing with that by sending a message to a refresh handler every five seconds there has been no other interaction. I figured a true handler response to a push from the other end would be more "dynamic" though. doug _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
