communications between sessions?

[aa]

Does ASP allow communications between sessions?
Usually Response sends the response to the destination from which the
Request came.
Is it possible to send the Response to some other client who is connected to
the same page at this moment?

 

[Evertjan.]

aa wrote on 03 feb 2004 in microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general:

Does ASP allow communications between sessions?
Usually Response sends the response to the destination from which the
Request came.
Is it possible to send the Response to some other client who is
connected to the same page at this moment?

Clients are not connected to a page, they just get a html page downloaded.

The only way to get info from one session to the other is the save that
info on the server [in a file, a database file or an application variable]
for retrieval by another session's page.

 

[aa]

Clients are not connected to a page, they just get a html page downloaded.

I appreciate that.
But a client stays connected (Connection:Keep-Alive) to the server (I guess)
which I interpret as a possibility for the server to use this connection to
send information.
Where am I wrong?

aa wrote on 03 feb 2004 in microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general:

Does ASP allow communications between sessions?
Usually Response sends the response to the destination from which the
Request came.
Is it possible to send the Response to some other client who is
connected to the same page at this moment?

Clients are not connected to a page, they just get a html page downloaded.

The only way to get info from one session to the other is the save that
info on the server [in a file, a database file or an application variable]
for retrieval by another session's page.

 

[Evertjan.]

aa wrote on 04 feb 2004 in microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general:

Clients are not connected to a page, they just get a html page
downloaded.

This shows there is no keep alive in connection with the browser.

I appreciate that.
But a client stays connected (Connection:Keep-Alive) to the server (I
guess) which I interpret as a possibility for the server to use this
connection to send information.
Where am I wrong?

You are wrong

[1 By topposting]

2 There is no keep alive in asp server client intercource, as far as I
know.

Only thwe client can ask for more information by rewesting a new page.

(I hope we are not talking asp.net [OT on this NG] which perhaps fakes a
connection by adsking for iframse or so. I knowe nothing about that.)

 

[aa]

1 There is no keep alive in asp server client intercource, as far as I
know.

Is this relevant to asp server? I thought that this is relevant to HTTP and
a server which manages HTTP

2. Only thwe client can ask for more information by rewesting a new page
This is how thing are working most of the time. But are you sure about
"Only"?

Consider this:
A Client sends an HTTP request. Webserver replies to it with an HTTP
response. What prevents the Webserver from sending a second response along
the same route?

3. REMOTE_HOST in Request.ServerVariables - does it mean the IP (static or
dynamic) adress of the computer, generated the HTTP request?

4. [1 By topposting]

If you mean my message timestamped 1.5 hours before yours - I have nothing
to do with this for these 1.5 hour give no advantage and secondly, I
understand that this can only be done by wrong time set on my. As of this
writing I have 10:14 am UK time on my machine

aa wrote on 04 feb 2004 in microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general:

Clients are not connected to a page, they just get a html page
downloaded.

This shows there is no keep alive in connection with the browser.

I appreciate that.
But a client stays connected (Connection:Keep-Alive) to the server (I
guess) which I interpret as a possibility for the server to use this
connection to send information.
Where am I wrong?

You are wrong

[1 By topposting]

2 There is no keep alive in asp server client intercource, as far as I
know.

Only thwe client can ask for more information by rewesting a new page.

(I hope we are not talking asp.net [OT on this NG] which perhaps fakes a
connection by adsking for iframse or so. I knowe nothing about that.)

 

[Evertjan.]

aa wrote on 05 feb 2004 in microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general:

1 There is no keep alive in asp server client intercource, as far as
I know.

Is this relevant to asp server? I thought that this is relevant to
HTTP and a server which manages HTTP

It is relevant to the browser, that only sees html content and header
info. It needs two to keep a connection alive.

2. Only thwe client can ask for more information by rewesting a new
page This is how thing are working most of the time. But are you sure
about "Only"?

Consider this:
A Client sends an HTTP request. Webserver replies to it with an HTTP
response. What prevents the Webserver from sending a second response
along the same route?

Nothing, but the browser is not "into" unrequested streams.

3. REMOTE_HOST in Request.ServerVariables - does it mean the IP
(static or dynamic) adress of the computer, generated the HTTP
request?

No, it could also mean the proxiserver. Or your NAT translation router.

4. [1 By topposting]

If you mean my message timestamped 1.5 hours before yours - I have
nothing to do with this for these 1.5 hour give no advantage and
secondly, I understand that this can only be done by wrong time set on
my. As of this writing I have 10:14 am UK time on my machine

No, please read up on usenet netiquette about quoting.

Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>

RFC 1855
<http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html>

etc.

 

[Guest]

1. > Nothing, but the browser is not "into" unrequested streams.

You mean that it is possible to generate "unsolisited" responce on the
server, and it will reach the cleant, but the browser will ignore it?

2. [1 By topposting]
I see. Actually this is not a strict rule, but rather an opinion. There are
a lot of people who prefer bottomposting, myself among them.
Topposting is consideres bad, because it does not creat context. But I
always quote the bit I refering to, so the context is there.

I find bottomposting inconveniet as it forses you to scroll down though your
own writing and make is easy to miss an important comment. But again, this
is a matter of taste.

aa wrote on 05 feb 2004 in microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general:

1 There is no keep alive in asp server client intercource, as far as
I know.

Is this relevant to asp server? I thought that this is relevant to
HTTP and a server which manages HTTP

It is relevant to the browser, that only sees html content and header
info. It needs two to keep a connection alive.

2. Only thwe client can ask for more information by rewesting a new
page This is how thing are working most of the time. But are you sure
about "Only"?

Consider this:
A Client sends an HTTP request. Webserver replies to it with an HTTP
response. What prevents the Webserver from sending a second response
along the same route?

Nothing, but the browser is not "into" unrequested streams.

3. REMOTE_HOST in Request.ServerVariables - does it mean the IP
(static or dynamic) adress of the computer, generated the HTTP
request?

No, it could also mean the proxiserver. Or your NAT translation router.

4. [1 By topposting]

If you mean my message timestamped 1.5 hours before yours - I have
nothing to do with this for these 1.5 hour give no advantage and
secondly, I understand that this can only be done by wrong time set on
my. As of this writing I have 10:14 am UK time on my machine

No, please read up on usenet netiquette about quoting.

Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>

RFC 1855
<http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html>

etc.

 

[Evertjan.]

wrote on 05 feb 2004 in microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general:

1. > Nothing, but the browser is not "into" unrequested streams.

You mean that it is possible to generate "unsolisited" responce on the
server, and it will reach the cleant, but the browser will ignore it?

No, not at all, there is no reason to generate "unsolisited" responces to
browsers that will not listen anyway.

2. [1 By topposting]
I see. Actually this is not a strict rule, but rather an opinion.
There are a lot of people who prefer bottomposting, myself among them.
Topposting is consideres bad, because it does not creat context. But I
always quote the bit I refering to, so the context is there.

It surely is a strict rule, as far as netiquette on usenet and anything in
this free for all cybespace can be called strict.

The alternative to topposting is not bottomposting, but also and better
interposting, as you sometimes(?) and I now do.

And why repeat the quote of the total post at the bottom, where it only
takes an enormous unused bandwith and storage on all those usenet machines,
let alone that it clutters my view?