Thanks. What you mentioned didn't really work but you mentioned some things that helped me thinking on a way that probably solves the situation.
Thank you :). On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 4:58:06 PM UTC+1, Tei wrote: > > I dunno. > > Every time a task start, they could increase a global variable > TaskWaiting. > Every time a task end, they increase a global variable TaskComplete. > > The greasemonky script run at intervals, read these global variables > and mantain the totalTaskWaiting and totalTaskComplete somewhere > (maybe a central page, maybe with GM_setValue ). > > This greasemoneky script also mantain a variable > globalTaskWaitingToComplete, with the number of task that have > started, but are not finished, that is totalTaskWaiting - > totalTaskComplete > > yadda.yadda.yadda... ugly stuff. > > The general idea is to use http://wiki.greasespot.net/GM_setValue to > store data globally of the status. Then have the server send "Taks is > starterd!" and "Task is finsished". > > It can be as comples or as simple as you want. You may want to save > then ames of the task. so instead of saving a number, you save a list > and mantain what one is finished or not, maybe other data like > dependency, blocking/not blocking... > > PHP developers don't usually have to do anything like this, because > the session storage they usually use block concurrent access, so B > always wait until A end and closes. C waits for B to close. > > > On 3 September 2014 16:54, brunoais <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > I'm working on a script that, in order to reduce server load, should > > synchronize between multiple instances that can appear in multiple > pages. > > > > The idea is to have: > > User opens tabs A,B,C,D. Each one has an instance of the script. > > > > The user start the processing in the tabs A, B, C, D (just assume about > 1s > > delay between each other and that they are in that order). > > > > The whole process to assist the user in gathering some data from the > server > > and from connections related to the server. > > Multiple requests are required for each thing and that takes some time. > > > > In order to save on server load, my idea is to have B waiting for A to > > finish, C waiting for B to finish and D waiting for C to finish. It is > also > > part of the idea to not rely on the server for this synchronization work > as > > it would use load to do some work that should be possible to do without > the > > server's intervention. > > > > My current problem is to synchronize all these so that D goes after C > that > > goes after B that goes after A. While not forgetting that if the tab B > is > > closed after A is complete, C should start (do not make infinite waits > for B > > to complete). Also, if B is closed while working, C starts working and D > > continues to wait. > > > > I've been trying this with localstorage and the "storage" event and > timeouts > > (with also heartbeats) but I'm having issues with infinite loops and > with > > scripts running in the background. Any ideas? > > > > > > Even if not true, please assume that there is no alternative to doing > the > > said requests to the server. > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > "greasemonkey-users" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an > > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:>. > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greasemonkey-users. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > -- > ℱin del ℳensaje. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "greasemonkey-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greasemonkey-users. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
