Raghu/Frank, You are very right in saying that it is a real fun participating in a discussion where architects bring out all different aspects of the problems and solutions with the trade-offs.
Now coming back to the topic in hand - 1. I agree with you about the applet route (and its consequences). Bit I have to rule it out initially itself as the client is not fine with applet (again due the consequences you already discussed). 2. They are neither ok with using any other standard or custom application protocol over TCP/IP apart from HTTP. I'm having a real hard time in convincing them that they are aspiring for something impossible unless some not so elegant technology like pushlet (according to me) is used for achieving pull based server over http. Regards, Sourav -----Original Message----- From: Frank W. Zammetti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:01 AM To: Struts Users Mailing List Subject: Re: Web Push Technology Raghu Kanchustambham wrote: > One thing I am just wondering right now is, whether I need to really run > this "alerting push" communication over HTTP ? Why not I have the applet > open a connection to another "plain-socket-listening-server" (not the same > HTTP server) which keeps the connection 'alive' for this client? The rest of > application continues to be 'powered' by the HTTP server, but just the > alerting part can take a different route, where the applet could make a new > connection to a new server/port and hence cutting out HTTP alltogether! That's not a bad option... I usually think of HTTP because port 80 is usually easier to get traffic through firewalls, but yes, a custom protocol on another port works well. I think most of us have done the chat application in Swing project, it seems to be typical when learning network programming in Java, and usually you develop your own protocol and use it over naked sockets. Same thing. (unless you did it with RMI like many people do) > Now I agree, the same security and permissioning concerns remain but just > wondering if this is a better model though. The firewall needs to open up > for non-HTTP traffic etc.. but just curious if this makes sense. Yes, it absolutely does. I would tend away from it just because you would likely run into *MORE* of a hassle with regard to network security, but the basic approach is perfectly sound. > ~Raghu~ Frank --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] **************** CAUTION - Disclaimer ***************** This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended solely for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, you are not to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any other person and any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for any damage you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this e-mail address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the Infosys e-mail system. ***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS*** --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
