Subject:
|
Re: GUI LUGNET streaming news client in Java (Was: Pseudo-streaming live news (was: Re: Monitor Page))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:14:47 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2181 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> Dan Boger wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > > Was the cold response the result of my presentation, or did the app just bite?
> > sorry, man, can't try it out - it requires java, which mozilla does not support
> > yet.
>
> Good point. I wasn't clear enough.
>
> This does not require any browser support of Java. Instead, it's a Java
> application which periodically *launches* Netscape (could be any browser,
> regardless of Java support).
heh, that occured to me... while I dislike java, I'll give it a shot :)
> > Heh, it'd be cool if we agreed on APIs, since then my client could connect to
> > your server, and vice versa.... no?
>
> I've only been doing pure client stuff so far. I've been holding off of the
> middle-tier API until someone could come to a consensus on what form it should
> take.
>
> What kind of middle-layer solution do you have in mind? Some ideas I've had:
>
> o Mirror the avid.cgi API. An endpoint client could talk to lugnet.com or a
> middle layer with impunity. Additionally, middle layers can talk to other
> middle layers, kind of like chaining HTTP proxies. Benefits could include
> message caching and pre-endpoint message filtering. Drawback: middle-layer
> servers need to implement at least a subset of HTTP. (I like this solution
> the most.)
yes, but in that case, you increase the delay from the time the message is
posted, and the time the client displays it... it'll be 2-10 minutes, assuming
the 1/5 min delay that Todd's original script used...
> o Client opens an socket to the middle tier, and keeps it open. Thinking of
> something like a one-way telnet session. Messages are sent until the socket
> is closed. Benefit: telnet becomes a client. Drawback: probably
> difficult-if-not-impossible across a firewall.
nod, that would be faster, and you could open it on any port, practicly... of
course, if your firewall only allows port 80 through, you'll have to run the
middle-tier as root, or use a port-proxy...
> From my end, either way is equally viable based upon what code I have already
> written.
and I could work with either way, just becuase I do intend to start from
scratch... :)
Dan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
66 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
