|
22 Jul 04 - 06:33 PM (#1231702) Subject: Tech: Chat app From: Clinton Hammond Here... Try a chat app that doesn't SUCK! http://www.folkinfo.org/chat.asp |
|
22 Jul 04 - 06:35 PM (#1231708) Subject: RE: Tech: Chat app From: Sorcha I concur. Whole Cat has been beastly the last 2 days. So what if some people don't have Java? It's MUCH more stable. |
|
22 Jul 04 - 06:37 PM (#1231710) Subject: RE: Tech: Chat app From: Clinton Hammond There's no good reason to not have Java... |
|
22 Jul 04 - 06:56 PM (#1231731) Subject: RE: Tech: Chat app From: The Fooles Troupe Old machines that people can't afford to throw away and buy new ones that can handle the extra load of running the Java app .... |
|
22 Jul 04 - 07:51 PM (#1231758) Subject: RE: Tech: Chat app From: Clinton Hammond Awww waaah! The internet is about technology... Step up or step off... |
|
22 Jul 04 - 09:59 PM (#1231846) Subject: RE: Tech: Chat app From: mack/misophist There's a third option; don't do chat. I can't type that fast. Besides, I've nothing to say. |
|
23 Jul 04 - 12:52 AM (#1231926) Subject: RE: Tech: Chat app From: GUEST,Jon I think it remains one of those "no wins" Java can raise compatibility problems, eg. I beleive this one isn't too great on some macs. It also won't work for WebTV although I have little tolerence for those things and quite frankly fail to see why computer efforts should in any way be dictated by what is not a computuer can not do (or is it 'cause mr gates does not control Java) I'd not use the server/browser refresh system at folkinfo for reasons of bandwidth (and I can do this without touching my resources except for access to get in) but it's not only that - I don't believe in trying to make an HTTP server into a chat server this way as these things request pages to every user on line every few seconds. Jon |
|
23 Jul 04 - 01:43 AM (#1231943) Subject: RE: Tech: Chat app From: Clinton Hammond "on some macs" "won't work for WebTV" A pretty paltry reason to not use the best available software (or at least better than what works on everything) Cause it seems like what works on everything, only barely works at all... It's like being ticked off cause a concert is only released on DVD, and it won't play on your cars 8-track player... |
|
23 Jul 04 - 02:25 AM (#1231955) Subject: RE: Tech: Chat app From: The Fooles Troupe In the Free market, which is what the rest of the world gets shoved down its throat from the USA, the demand for the 8-track would be satisified... but someone wants to make money by shoving the latest gizmo down our throat. "A pretty paltry reason to not use the best available software" My 1G P3 512Mb machine runs it like a dog... and chews bandwidth... The main hassle with the Mudchat for me seems to be when the link is so clogged (probably with spam/virus crap) that the app keeps timing out - an effective throughput of 100 bytes/sec bandwidth due to channel throttling is also a hassle... "Cause it seems like what works on everything, only barely works at all" It's better for it to work properly on all, than only on just a few - that's why we musos all tune our instruments to the same pitch when we play together... Robin |
|
23 Jul 04 - 08:21 AM (#1232097) Subject: RE: Tech: Chat app From: GUEST,Jon As I said before, Robin, it is a no win. This one does work for the majority of users. I have a couple more viewpoints from the other side to offer. 1. For the majority it works well for, it is much faster than a browser/refresh type could ever hope to be. Should one be slowed down to crawling pace? 2. I don't know how many the chat room has at one time - I'll say 10 for the sake of argument. Let's say we get a refresh every 5 seconds. That's adding 120 page requests per minute on an http server that already seems to be working hard. It may be significant, it may be not. But if it was would it be worth risking crashing all http services for? 3. Programs like java based chat rooms are purpose built rather than trying to adapt a web server. Is it not better to use tools designed for a job? One major advantage of any (Java or otherwise) dedicated chat is that you only need to send out the text and you are not tying up your web server to do this as usualy, it would be a separate server. I must stress here, I'm not trying to argue a right or wrong - there are merits both ways. I'm just trying to give the other side to some of your comments. |
|
23 Jul 04 - 09:17 AM (#1232142) Subject: RE: Tech: Chat app From: The Fooles Troupe Well, we've had nearly 30 in the Mudchat, and it ran without any real problems - but that was when there was no net slowdown, as there is at the moment. "One major advantage of any (Java or otherwise) dedicated chat is that you only need to send out the text and you are not tying up your web server to do this as usually, it would be a separate server." As programmer, I can assure you that to do the same task, you still have to do the same basic functions, no matter what programming language, or OS you use. Of course if you are using assembly, it will faster even than Java... I found the Java chat apps - have tried several - a pain, and no more efficient or faster than Mudchat on a good day. The Java app itself is a large load on the system, and runs in the browser anyway. Robin |
|
23 Jul 04 - 09:39 AM (#1232169) Subject: RE: Tech: Chat app From: Jon Freeman Have you ever written a chat program Robin? I have and the server worked well even if I say so myself. I wrote the server in C++. I did make a mistake with the client though - I'd not realised that Netscape made a distinction between an app and and applet so it gave "not an applet error". It was only a bit of fun but I managed a 4 way chat once running over a dial up connection. The server was a P133. The efficiency bit really is a no brainer nor is the speed. A browser refresh system has to rely on the browsers to request page refreshes and is timed. To suggest that a system that has to rely on a client to request a page and time that to some delay can be quicker is nonsense. Next thing you will be telling me is that such a system could host live talk... Not really wanting an argument here but I don't accept what you have said at all. Jon |
|
23 Jul 04 - 09:44 AM (#1232173) Subject: RE: Tech: Chat app From: GUEST,Jon PS, I logged on to check comparitive speeds. To confirm I was right. I will stress again, I'm not saying the aproach here is wrong. Just there are issues both ways. |