Also, AJAX retrieves less information overall (sometimes significantly), since the page display data usually isn't sent.
-- Enric --- In [email protected], "Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Except that with BITS the user experience doesn't change. > > - Andreas > > On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:34:00 +0100, Markus Sandy > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > same for AJAX, but both are certainly gaining traction > > > > i guess the question revolves around your parenthetical remark > > > > many people seem to think it's necessary to hit servers with smaller, > > but great numbered requests these days > > > > it's that "experience" thing i think > > > > ;) > > > > > > > > Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:12:30 +0100, André Sala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> But the problem, it seems, with BITS is that it makes a substantial > >>> number of webserver requests. If you look at your server log you > >>> might think that BITS is hammering your bandwidth because of the high > >>> number of requests. This is because it is making requests to the > >>> server for small chunks of a file rather than one request for the > >>> whole file itself. Once it has collected all of the bits of a file, > >>> it marks it as being finished and makes the file available to the > >>> user. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Doesn't that create a substantial (and unnecessary) amount of overhead > >> for > >> the webserver to deal with? Why use this technology at all? > >> > >> - Andreas > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > <URL:http://www.solitude.dk/> > Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology. > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
