Re: response for server every second

From	Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.php
Subject	Re: response for server every second
Date	2015-06-23 19:10 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<mmcov7$htv$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<94be00e7-99d7-4d84-97a5-538535a0317d@googlegroups.com> <55784c9c$0$2956$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <10793488.AfY9kfu9Qn@PointedEars.de> <5589770f$0$2889$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <15774402.MeXr0uTVEA@PointedEars.de>

Show all headers | View raw

On 6/23/2015 6:06 PM, Thomas 'Pointed Head' Lahn wrote:
> Erwin Moller wrote:
> 
>> The data the client receives is *always* out of date, no matter what you
>> do.
> 
> Wrong.
>

And why not?  Stoopid Pointed Head response - says something is wrong
but too stoopid to explain why.

>> […]
>> My suggestion by using 1 file is not a bad idea.
> 
> Yes, it is.  There are also limits as to how many processes can concurrently 
> *read* from a single file.
> 

And how many is that, Pointed Head?  Too many for a web server to handle?

>> --> But it assumes that all the clients need the same information. <--
> 
> It also assumes unlimited resources.
> 

And why should it require unlimited resources?

>> […]
>> It wasn't clear in the original post if each client receives the same
>> data, so I gave it as a (very fast) option to consider.
>> Very fast compared to requerying the database for each request.
> 
> Probably slower and more limited than server-side sessions in any case.
> 

Maybe, maybe not.  It depends on a lot of factors which have not been
defined.

>>>> Warning: write the file as myOutput_tmp.xml, then rename to
>>>> myOutput.xml, otherwise you risk trying to read a file that is in the
>>>> process of being written.
>>> Even heavier on resources.  How many copies do you suggest should be
>>> lying around on the harddisk?
>>
>> 1 copy.
>> Do you actually understand what situation I described?
> 
> It was not at all clear what you meant.
>

It was to me - and I would guess any *knowledgeable* person in this
newsgroup.

>>> This is an Incredibly Bad Idea[tm].
>>
>> You are entitled to your own opinion.
>> (But please don't present it like a fact, that confuses people who read
>> this discussion and can read better than you did.)
> 
> You mean “*guess* better”.  Only *now* *you* have introduced the condition 
> that all clients get the same data.
> 

I would say more of an "informed opinion" (which you don't have) rather
than a "guess". One I happen to agree with.

>>> […]  You would not do [caching] in the filesystem, though, at least not
>>> directly.  Server-side sessions come to mind.
>>
>> Many roads lead to Rome.
>> My example used a file, because that is extremely easy to understand.
> 
> Bad examples are worse than no examples at all.  Especially if the caveats 
> are not pointed out.
> 

So why do you keep expounding on bad examples?

>>>> If you are a bit familiar with ECMA Script (such as Javascript), try
>>>> this route.
>>> _ECMAScript_, _JavaScript_.  JavaScript is an implementation of
>>> ECMAScript; actually JavaScript *are* implementations of ECMAScript as
>>> there are several implementations (but not all of them) that contain
>>> “JavaScript” in their name.  […]
>>
>> Free advise: You might consider putting that in your sig.
>            ^c
> 
> Too long; a sig should not exceed 4 lines à 80 characters.  Also, I would 
> have to remove “Zend Certified PHP Engineer” from it, thereby an important 
> hint that I am also qualified to make such statements as I did elsewhere in 
> my posting.
> 

More nonsense from the pedantic troll.  This is not your personal newsgroup.

>> That way you don't have to type it in every other post.
>> (Or give up your one-man crusade against
>> Idiots-Who-Refuse-To-Understand-The-Difference-Between-Javascript-
>> JavaScript-JScript-ECMAScript, like me.)
> 
> You are arguing like an idiot, indeed.
> 

Pot - Kettle - Black.

> At this point, let me remind you of <http://thecodelesscode.com/case/195> 
> which Hans-Georg Michna kindly posted in <news:comp.lang.javascript>, and 
> whose point you did not seem to get back then.
> 
> HTH
> 

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion - other than
something a troll would bring up.  But then it's what I would expect of you.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Thread

response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-10 06:59 -0700
  Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-10 10:18 -0400
  Re: response for server every second Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-06-10 16:41 +0200
    Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-10 11:55 -0400
      Re: response for server every second Allodoxaphobia <knock_yourself_out@example.net> - 2015-06-10 16:50 +0000
        Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-10 13:23 -0400
          Re: response for server every second Richard Yates <richard@yatesguitar.com> - 2015-06-10 10:37 -0700
            Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-10 14:27 -0400
    Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-10 23:38 -0700
    Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-11 00:14 -0700
      Re: response for server every second Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-06-11 12:09 +0200
        Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-11 04:16 -0700
          Re: response for server every second Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-06-11 14:37 +0200
            Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-11 06:20 -0700
              Re: response for server every second Matthew Carter <m@ahungry.com> - 2015-06-11 13:45 -0400
            Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-11 23:35 -0700
              Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-12 09:10 -0400
          Re: response for server every second Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2015-06-12 03:59 +0000
            [off topic nodejs advertisement] Was Re: response for server every second Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-06-15 16:08 +0200
              Performance of PHP vs. Node.js (was: [off topic nodejs advertisement]) "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-06-15 20:42 +0200
                Re: Performance of PHP vs. Node.js Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-06-16 00:20 +0200
                Re: Performance of PHP vs. Node.js "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2015-06-16 00:58 +0200
          Re: response for server every second gordonb.890nt@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-06-13 13:39 -0500
            Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-18 23:16 -0700
              Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-19 08:16 -0400
                Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-21 23:06 -0700
                Re: response for server every second "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2015-06-22 08:03 -0500
                Re: response for server every second Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2015-06-23 06:39 +0000
                Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-23 07:23 -0400
    Re: response for server every second Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-22 18:37 +0200
      Re: response for server every second Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-22 18:42 +0200
      Re: response for server every second Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-06-23 17:11 +0200
        Re: response for server every second Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-24 00:06 +0200
          Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-23 19:10 -0400
            Re: response for server every second Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-24 01:45 +0200
              Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-23 20:21 -0400
                Re: response for server every second apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-06-23 23:34 -0700
                Re: response for server every second bill <william@TechServSys.com> - 2015-06-24 06:58 -0400
                Re: response for server every second Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-25 17:18 +0200
                Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-25 20:31 -0400
                Technical requiremenets for Usenet messages (was: Re: response for server every second) Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-26 10:43 +0200
                Re: Technical requiremenets for Usenet messages Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-26 21:47 +0200
                Re: Technical requiremenets for Usenet messages Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-26 22:19 +0200
                Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-25 23:07 -0400
                Re: response for server every second Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-26 10:21 +0200
                Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-26 06:48 -0400
                Technical requirements for Usenet messages (was Re: response for server every second) Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-26 13:48 +0200
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages (was Re: response for server every second) Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-26 14:29 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-27 14:49 +0200
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-27 10:25 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-28 17:52 +0200
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-28 20:08 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2015-06-27 22:14 -0500
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-28 17:54 +0200
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-28 20:10 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-30 09:54 +0200
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-30 08:45 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-06-30 16:20 +0200
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-30 15:00 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-07-06 13:36 +0200
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-07-06 11:56 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-06 18:54 +0100
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-07-06 16:54 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-07 00:00 +0100
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-07-06 22:08 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-07 07:24 +0100
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-07-07 10:41 -0400
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages apoorv.kanungo@gmail.com - 2015-07-09 22:52 -0700
                Re: Technical requirements for Usenet messages Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 03:07 +0000
                Re: response for server every second Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-26 21:13 +0200
            Re: response for server every second Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 09:52 +0100
              Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-24 09:21 -0400
                Re: response for server every second Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 18:48 +0100
                Re: response for server every second Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-24 20:55 +0200
                Re: response for server every second Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 20:55 +0100
                Re: response for server every second Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-06-24 15:21 -0400
                Re: response for server every second Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-06-24 20:35 +0100

csiph-web