> Why? You have to keep a connection open to be notified of changes. > Polling you open and close connections at specific intervals (e.g. every 10 > seconds, every 1 minute, etc.).
It's more efficient because - no connection creation/removal overhead - events are communicated when they occur, no needless polling. > It "doesn't matter" if you have 100 threads or 100 processes: you'll have > 100 open connections to your system and possibly to your database for every > 100 clients you have. You'll need to take that into account when > specifying the server. How big would your server need to be to handle 1000 > simultaneous connections? And how big would it need to be to handle 1000 > connections polling data every 10 seconds? It is more overhead to have 100 connections being made every 10 seconds to catch events with a frequence of one event per 20 secondes (shannon) instead of them being open all the time and *only* when an actual event happens, it will be communicated. The question is if - the serverside can keep these connections open without much overhead, which a thread would be, but an asynchronous is not. - the browser limits the number of connections, keeping one open will possibly limit you when as a result of an event or such you need to fetch data from the server. Diez --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
