Re: Staph -- another thing to consider.
- From: rAzZbAr <glakk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:30:43 -0800
On Nov 1, 4:38 pm, foote <tjfo...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rAzZbAr wrote:
Well, sure. But the thing is, the client side code must allow for
failure. As far as I can see, there's no timeout check when you submit
something from the browser. It just hangs, until you try and leave the
page. Then it tells you that your message hasn't been submitted. You -
always- have to allow for failure on the server side. Or should.
there is a built in timeout on most servers ...to do the task
asked of it... its usually set to 1 minute... this is designed so
someone does not mail out 10 million emils...
or runnig endless loops ....so if google doesnt do what it is suppose
to do in less than 1 minute... it timesout....and yes ajax should
report it as a timeout... instead of hanging you..
Yeah, actually the client should give up after waiting about 5 or 10
seconds.
i don't know i didn't write ajax probably someone who skipped
programmer school and didn't learn about writing failure traps...
I don't think they're teaching ajax in school yet. It's just lazy,
optomistic programming.
But... PERL executes at the server, and the XMLHTTPRequest object is
part of JavaScript, which runs on the browser. But if you use it, you
know that.
Well, something happens at both ends, actually. First the browser
sends the request, then the server processes it and sends something
out, then the browser has to process the reply.
ok i admit was wrong..perl does execute at the server and gets its
info there...I exist mostly in the PERL universe...and try to restrict
learning
anything more of PC programming except PERL... I'm trying to
get out of the programming field not deeper into it...I got better
things
to waste my time on....
PERL.... I'm so glad PHP came along and eliminated the need for PERL.
What an unreadable language! I know some people love it, and to others
it's a religion. Not me, thanks.
OK
but the bottom line is ...if google had more servers it could get the
task done in under the 1 minute or whatever the timeout is....
so..... the problem as I said is with google and not ajax... ajax justYeah, it's the ajax code that's on the google groups pages where you
gives your no timeout message...when it should...at least thats what
you claim...(i didn't write ajax or work with it so i don't know what
the dam thing actually does in error conditions...but it sounds like
your right)
can hit a 'reply' button. So it's google's code, running on the
client... maybe, 'cause I haven't bothered to understand the code. I'm
just blowing a lot of smoke here, you understand...
the reason they probably never did internal security in the os for
pcs was speed and memory... but now pcs are much faster than
the 2.mhz and much larger memory systems....which would
allow internal security to happen...
Well, remember thazt the first pc's weren't connected to networks,
either.
I heard windows new os vista does prevent you from getting in and
executing at the root level... which no one but ms should be able to
do...so ms is patching up some of its know hacker doorways
Heh, have you heard about the Storm Worm? The worm that nobody can
trace or block? That's the most powerful supercomputer in the world
when connected? Seriously... it's pretty scary. Somebody essentially
owns the internet, and nobody knows who it is.
.
- References:
- Re: Staph -- another thing to consider.
- From: rAzZbAr
- Re: Staph -- another thing to consider.
- From: foote
- Re: Staph -- another thing to consider.
- Prev by Date: Re: National Rainbow Managment Team
- Next by Date: Re: Normal zhit
- Previous by thread: Re: Staph -- another thing to consider.
- Next by thread: Re: Staph -- another thing to consider.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
