How reliable are the statistics from w3schools? (
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp). It is stated in this
page http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_explorer.asp that IE6 users
are about 0.1% of the total Internet users.
When I first began web development I always tried to
> FWIW, in my case I fall back to polling every 10s in case websockets
> are not supported. However, as soon as IE9 penetration drops to an
> insignificant level I will stop with fallbacks.
>
Make a user agent statistic from your users, or try to obtain data about
your target audience.
Rumour is,
FWIW, in my case I fall back to polling every 10s in case websockets
are not supported. However, as soon as IE9 penetration drops to an
insignificant level I will stop with fallbacks.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:11 PM, wrote:
> Seems like we have a similar goal, Amaury! Cool :)
>
>> On Mon, Jul
Seems like we have a similar goal, Amaury! Cool :)
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 03:52:42AM -0700, Amaury Hernández Ãguila wrote:
>> Yeah that would be nice. So, isn't that a good reason to have websockets
>> in
>> PocoLisp?
>
> I would not say so. In a video game you have so much continuous
> commu
Yes but that's a residential subscription, before we moved to
co-location we used fasthosts.co.uk (highly recommended if you don't
do the kind of realtime stuff I do at work).
With fasthosts you get "unlimited" speed and transfers but when you do
what we do you quickly realize that it doesn't work
Hi Henrik,
> 44KB / second is far from insignificant IMO, it works out to 0.35
> Mbit/s if I'm not mistaken, we're paying 20 EUR per month per 1Mbit at
> our current co-location. Well worth spending a couple of days to avoid
> permanently.
wow, 20 EUR per 1Mbit? 160 EUR per 1MByte? In 2014? I
44KB / second is far from insignificant IMO, it works out to 0.35
Mbit/s if I'm not mistaken, we're paying 20 EUR per month per 1Mbit at
our current co-location. Well worth spending a couple of days to avoid
permanently.
Plus, the goal is to have much much more people logged in in the future.
On
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 03:52:42AM -0700, Amaury Hernández Águila wrote:
> Yeah that would be nice. So, isn't that a good reason to have websockets in
> PocoLisp?
I would not say so. In a video game you have so much continuous
communication going on (most notably the stream of image frames), that
Yeah that would be nice. So, isn't that a good reason to have websockets in
PocoLisp?
El jul 14, 2014 3:49 AM, "Alexander Burger" escribió:
> Hi Amaury,
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 03:26:15AM -0700, Amaury Hernández Águila wrote:
> > How about a browser videogame? Developing videogames in PicoLis
Hi Amaury,
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 03:26:15AM -0700, Amaury Hernández Águila wrote:
> How about a browser videogame? Developing videogames in PicoLisp would be
> great. I think I'll start one tomorrow.
Really? That would be great! I suspect there are many people here
interested to help.
♪♫ Alex
How about a browser videogame? Developing videogames in PicoLisp would be
great. I think I'll start one tomorrow.
El jul 14, 2014 3:21 AM, "Alexander Burger" escribió:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:02:10PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
> > with a size of 449 bytes. This is less than the default T
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:02:10PM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
> with a size of 449 bytes. This is less than the default TCP packet size
> of 1152 bytes, so a headerless protcoll wouldn't save anything here.
Sorry, forget that! I think there is no default TCP packet size :)
Anyway, we are not t
Hi Tomas,
> thing like the example from Alex, then the amount of work on the server
> seems rather small and avoiding sending HTTP headers seems like
> pointless micro-optimization.
True. The posts caused by the +Auto button are
POST /55319/29110032894590418~!jsForm?!chat?*Menu=+0&*Tab=+1&*ID
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:41:08AM +0200, Alexander Burger wrote:
> Not such a big problem. If I measure the described chat client, pinging
> every 2 seconds, I get 335 Bytes per second on the average. This amounts
> to 65 kB per second for 200 clients. Not a big problem today. Typically
Oops, no!
Hi Henrik and Alex,
Henrik Sarvell writes:
> Hi Alex, doesn't all that polling you're doing introduce a lot of
> unnecessary requests to the server.
>
> There can be up to 200 persons logged in at the same time at the site
> where I'm using websockets now, that would be 100 HTTP POSTS per
> secon
Hi Henrik,
> There can be up to 200 persons logged in at the same time at the site
> where I'm using websockets now, that would be 100 HTTP POSTS per
> second with full HTTP headers etc just to check for notifications that
> perhaps 1 or 2 of them would get per 10 seconds.
Not such a big problem.
I must say that I have doubts about the benefits of WebSockets
> in general. I cannot see that they are worth the overhead.
>
>
> They introduce a complicated machinery, which is not just a simple
> protocol extension, but a fundamental change in the HTTP transaction
> principles.
Hi Henrik,
first of all, thank you for the article and the good work!
However, I must say that I have doubts about the benefits of WebSockets
in general. I cannot see that they are worth the overhead.
They introduce a complicated machinery, which is not just a simple
protocol extension, but a
18 matches
Mail list logo
