Right now it is human driven on remote site, but the architecture is
not tied to this specific metaphor.
Is the project done ? No not yet !
Are we still working on this ? Yes ! and will be finishing real soon now
....:)
Enjoy,
--- Vinay Kumar vinay@eit.com "Bringing Real Time Network Media To The Desktop" <std/disclaimer.h> > From www-talk@www10.w3.org Fri Mar 3 08:15:23 1995 > From: mau@beatles.cselt.stet.it (Maurizio Codogno) > > As everybody of us know, html is a "monodirectional" protocol -- in the sense > that the server cannot initiate a response by itself, but it has to wait > for a http request from the client. > > (no, this is all wrong -- what I want to say is that with a HTML browser > you have to click to reload a page, otherwise it doesn't happen anything). > > I (pronunciation: "my boss") would like to investigate how the thing could > be changed, in order to have a real "live" environment. Supposing for the > moment to stick with unix systems and reasonable root powers :-), the first > ideas which came to me were the following: > > (1) add a background process which polls every x seconds the server to check > for a new (content of a) page > (2) try and integrate http server functionalities in the browser, to get > announcement of new data > (3) start a http client&server in the local machine and devise some way > to communicate between the browser and the http daemon. > > Now solution (1) is of course really simple to code, and it work fine for most > applications, but it could generate unnecessary load, and besides I don't > like it very much. Solution (2) seems to mix two very different things at > a logical level, and it should be avoided. Solution (3) in a certain sense > just moves the problem, since we have yet to think about how to make > an interaction between the browser and the http daemon, but at least this > has become a "local" solution. > > What do people think about it? All answers are welcome, from "HTML is not > the Right Means to do that, forget it" to "there is already such and such > which makes what you propose". Just don't say "You are an idiot who is > not even good to write in English", please - I do already know it, thanks. > > ciao, .mau. >