| Re: Is there a way to distinguish an auto-refresh from a manual page load? [message #177198 is a reply to message #177195] |
Sun, 26 February 2012 20:06   |
crankypuss
Messages: 147
Registered: March 2011
Karma:
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 02/26/2012 11:40 AM, J.O. Aho wrote:
> crankypuss wrote:
>> On 02/26/2012 05:25 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>> It occurs to me if I do refresh under Javashite I can always hand set a
>>> variable to say 'ignore the post variables, if they happen to be set'
>>>
>>> BUT I have to say I am attracted to playing with web sockets sim0ply
>>> because its new and a bit of a challenge. That avoids the need to
>>> refresh the page ...at all.
>>
>> I've never been successful in digging around to find out how the few
>> web pages
>> I've seen are able to update the page without constant flickering and
>> so on,
>> it's my impression (*not* understanding, I lack that) that http is a
>> client/server protocol and that once a request has been fulfilled the
>> transaction is over. I'm curious, but not compelled.
>
> Ajax runs in the "background", making a request in intervals and update
> the correct section of the page when there is something to update, a
> simple way to see this is to use something like firebug and see what
> connections are made after the page has been loaded.
Ajax is client-side js, isn't it? There's a lot that can be done if one
is willing to assume that all users have enabled js. Not all of it
good, necessarily. I tend toward the opposite extreme, assuming that js
is disabled unless the user specifically tells me otherwise.
>> On the other hand I have been somewhat successful in creating the same
>> appearance by using closely spaced refreshes, most browsers seem not
>> to clear
>> the screen prior to rendering so if the next is mostly the same as the
>> last it
>> appears to have been partially updated.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "web sockets", I've used the kind of
>> sockets
>> provided by PHP but if you mean something else I've no clue what that
>> might be.
>
> Web sockets has been introduced with html 5 (and there are a few
> diffe3rent standards too), which allows the server to push content to
> the browser instead of using ajax which pulls information from the server.
I will studiously avoid this, then; the redeeming graces of html are few
enough already... I really don't care a whit about conforming to the
expectations of html conformance freaks, as far as I'm concerned a
browser is simply a remote rendering device and document source format
is relevant only insofar that it determines semantics as related to the
remote rendering device. It seems impossible to be a purist and an
html-purist at the same time. Push is like Jehovah's Witnesses banging
on the door and should similarly be shot or hanged or simply beaten and
sent on its way, whichever is more convenient.
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]