vunet wrote:
> Can anyone explain the negative side of Comet programming?
I'll give it a try.
> GTalk on GMail seems to have Comet implemented and Comet appears to be
> the future of AJAX web apps.
Maybe so, but that assumption would be a little premature, don't you think?
> If the connection needs to be continuously open on one of the sides,
> won't it actually increase the server load rather than decrease as
> invented for that reason originally?
No, it won't. To use an image, you can have a tunnel and no or little
traffic going through. However, a client should only maintain a limited
number of persistent HTTP connections (which are the default behavior) with
any server or proxy (RFC 2616 recommends a maximum of two), which can slow
down other Web applications. Also, for persistent connections both client
and server have to fully implement HTTP/1.1, and the considerations included
there would apply for Comet-based applications as well:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt
> Can it work with heavy traffic applications well?
I don't see why it could not. However, of course it depends on what you
call "heavy traffic".
> Who had an experience and what can one say?
I have not, those above are general considerations from what I have just
read here and in Wikipedia about the Comet technology.
HTH
PointedEars
--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee
Similar Threads
