Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.php > #15492
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.php |
| Subject | Re: response for server every second |
| Date | 2015-06-23 20:21 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <mmct42$t6d$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <10793488.AfY9kfu9Qn@PointedEars.de> <5589770f$0$2889$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> <15774402.MeXr0uTVEA@PointedEars.de> <mmcov7$htv$1@dont-email.me> <1543927.4VZE17etc1@PointedEars.de> |
On 6/23/2015 7:45 PM, Thomas 'Pointed Head' Lahn wrote: > Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> 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 The data the client receives is *always* out of date, no matter what you 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? > > You mean “why (is it wrong)?”? Because there is the possibility that the > data in the database has not changed when the response is received by the > client. (That was an easy one.) > In what way? Erwin's comment was "The data the client receives is *always* out of date, no matter what you do." Explain your comment *in that context*. >>>> […] >>>> 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, […]? > > Depends. > Typical "I don't know - but I'm going to make a fool of myself and criticize his idea anyway" comment. If you can't define the limit, then you have no basis for your comment. >> Too many for a web server to handle? > > Impossible to say for sure. But better be safe than sorry. > See above. >>>> --> But it assumes that all the clients need the same information. <-- >>> It also assumes unlimited resources. >> >> And why should it require unlimited resources? > > Because, among others, the limit above has not been considered. > See above. >>>> […] >>>> 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. > > In which cases would server-side sessions be slower or only equally fast, > and more or only equally limited, than either of requerying the database or > direct file system access? > Maybe, maybe not. You made the comparison. Based on what? >> It depends on a lot of factors which have not been defined. > > I do not think so. > More properly, your period should have come after "think". >>>>> […] 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? > > I am pointing out that it is a bad example, and I am explaining why. If I > would not point it out and explain it, and nobody else would point it out > and explain it, the bad example could be taken as a good one. You would not > want that to happen, would you? > No, you are not explaining why *anything* is a bad example. Only claiming that bad examples are worse than none at all. Exactly what is bad about it? >>> 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. > > As for Usenet signature recommendations, see > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_block#Signatures_in_Usenet_postings> > > and > > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-useage-01#section-3.1.2.1>. > And you're the only one on this newsgroup who gives a damn about it. But then you're the only pedantic troll who thinks they own the group, and everyone should follow your "rules"/ > As for being a ZCE: We talk about that again that if and when you, too, have > become one of the only about 11'000 people world-wide in the ZCE Directory. > Based on the candidate IDs, I have calculated a success rate for all ZCE > exams of about 45 %; so there is a chance that you can pass, too. > Who cares? All the certification proves is that you can pass the exam. Your posts here prove that passing an exam is no proof of being able to do the work. But then those who can't do the work depend on the exams and certifications to prove their competence. Those of us who are competent do not need such artificial props. We get plenty of work without them. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
Back to comp.lang.php | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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