Re: Asynchronous Processing Web age
From: Scott Allen (bitmask_at_[nospam)
Date: 07/11/04
- Next message: Mark Goldin: "Open modal dialog"
- Previous message: Davide Vernole [MVP]: "Re: New windows"
- In reply to: Thomas Nielsen: "Asynchronous Processing Web age"
- Next in thread: Thomas Nielsen: "Re: Asynchronous Processing Web age"
- Reply: Thomas Nielsen: "Re: Asynchronous Processing Web age"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 22:40:22 -0400
Off hand I'd lean towards option #1, as it tends to tie up fewer
resources on the server. ASP.NET will only process a certain number of
concurrent requests, and even though that number is configurable it is
hard to tie up threads and connections while waiting around for
"stuff" to finish up or possibly time out.
The disclaimer is, I don't know how many users you need to support, or
how long the 3 asynch processes need to complete, so #1 may not be THE
optimal solution for your web application, but it is a conservative
approach.
-- Scott http://www.OdeToCode.com On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 19:48:54 -0400, "Thomas Nielsen" <tni@nc.rr.com> wrote: >Hi, > >I need to make a web page that wait for 3 asynchronous processes to finish. > >So I am considering these options > >1) Poll the status of the processes from the web page using the "REFRESH" >metatag in HTML. >2) Synchronously call a monitor function on the server that poll the status >of the processes, and returns when they are done. > >Are there other options? Which of the two can you recommend? > >- Thomas >
- Next message: Mark Goldin: "Open modal dialog"
- Previous message: Davide Vernole [MVP]: "Re: New windows"
- In reply to: Thomas Nielsen: "Asynchronous Processing Web age"
- Next in thread: Thomas Nielsen: "Re: Asynchronous Processing Web age"
- Reply: Thomas Nielsen: "Re: Asynchronous Processing Web age"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
