Wombat and Muppet know nothing about web push notifications...
-
Muppet has asked Wombat something about web push notifications - a topic they both know next to nothing about. Q: who knows even less than who? Wombat you cannot push something to a 'normal' user .. their modem/router firewall will block it. So it is a sort of fiddle... one way or another you have to get the user to install some sort of program. I gather browsers are maybe going to add some sort of such facility... Muppet This is precisely what you can do now... look up "Web push notifications" - it's all the rage. You have to get permission from the user (browser), but that's all. Wombat well if the browser has now got that option... yes... it looks like a push to the user... but actually the pushed messages are stored 'somewhere' and your browser pulls them Muppet No... there is a push... Wombat yes from your end you just push ... but the browser has to actively retrieve them you cannot push a message into a user's PC .. well not unless they set their firewall to always accept unexpected messages Muppet Your browser is not constantly polling the server in case there's a message for it... the server tells (pushes to) your browser it has a message for it Wombat no it cannot! it simply won't get past the router .. unless something is telling the router it wants it the messages will just sit there waiting if the user's browser is offline Muppet of course it can get past the router - all routers are open to web traffic Wombat because your browser has sent out a message .. and the router will accept a response from whoever the message went to.. within a time limit Muppet and these ntofiicatsion work by your broswer telling the server it will accept pushes from it - this is why you have to subscribe to them Wombat yes.. but the brower still has to ask for them! .. if you just fire a message at a router... how does it know which of many computers using it should get that message Muppet it knows by which browsers are signed up to accept them Wombat no.. the router has no idea what program is using it Muppet so how does the browser know when to ask for a message then? Wombat becasue when you tell it to allow notifications - from a specific source ... it remembers that and asks occasionally.. i think the default timeout for the router is about 15 seconds. Muppet no - I am 100% sure that isn't how it works Wombat it will be interesting to time how promptly the notification appears Muppet anyone can simply poll a server on a timer
-
Muppet has asked Wombat something about web push notifications - a topic they both know next to nothing about. Q: who knows even less than who? Wombat you cannot push something to a 'normal' user .. their modem/router firewall will block it. So it is a sort of fiddle... one way or another you have to get the user to install some sort of program. I gather browsers are maybe going to add some sort of such facility... Muppet This is precisely what you can do now... look up "Web push notifications" - it's all the rage. You have to get permission from the user (browser), but that's all. Wombat well if the browser has now got that option... yes... it looks like a push to the user... but actually the pushed messages are stored 'somewhere' and your browser pulls them Muppet No... there is a push... Wombat yes from your end you just push ... but the browser has to actively retrieve them you cannot push a message into a user's PC .. well not unless they set their firewall to always accept unexpected messages Muppet Your browser is not constantly polling the server in case there's a message for it... the server tells (pushes to) your browser it has a message for it Wombat no it cannot! it simply won't get past the router .. unless something is telling the router it wants it the messages will just sit there waiting if the user's browser is offline Muppet of course it can get past the router - all routers are open to web traffic Wombat because your browser has sent out a message .. and the router will accept a response from whoever the message went to.. within a time limit Muppet and these ntofiicatsion work by your broswer telling the server it will accept pushes from it - this is why you have to subscribe to them Wombat yes.. but the brower still has to ask for them! .. if you just fire a message at a router... how does it know which of many computers using it should get that message Muppet it knows by which browsers are signed up to accept them Wombat no.. the router has no idea what program is using it Muppet so how does the browser know when to ask for a message then? Wombat becasue when you tell it to allow notifications - from a specific source ... it remembers that and asks occasionally.. i think the default timeout for the router is about 15 seconds. Muppet no - I am 100% sure that isn't how it works Wombat it will be interesting to time how promptly the notification appears Muppet anyone can simply poll a server on a timer
WhoPinchedMyName wrote:
Q: who knows even less than who?
They have a term definition problem. And both failed to recognize that. Definition of a TCP Push. 1. There are two actors: server and client. These do NOT define implementation but rather how each behaves. 2. A 'server' is waiting for a connection. 3. A 'client' opens a TCP connection. This is exact step defines the push. The one that opens it is the only one that can be defined as doing the push. 4. The 'client' sends a message to the 'server'. What if the 'server' sends a message to the 'client'. Doesn't matter. It can't do that until the 'client' opens the connection. A browser, in general, uses HTTP which is built on TCP. So HTTP in any discussion is irrelevant. A browser, as used by the vast majority of the public, does not have a public IP. A browser, the common ones do not act as server because of that (at least for this discussion.) It would be pointless because without a public IP nothing on the 'internet' could do step #3 in the above list. ------------------------------------------------ Web designers use API/libraries which use terminology that uses the term 'push' which has nothing to do with the above. That sort of push does require that the browser acts as a client (see list above). Terminology does not change that the 'client' (browser) must first open the connection. An easy example of this is when a user asks for a report that takes a long time to run. They might sit there refreshing the page waiting seconds, minutes or hours for it to show up. Or the web designer might make the page refresh on its own. Thus at some point the user knows that the report is ready. But if the browser is closed there is no way for the report service to 'push' a notification that the report is done to the browser.
-
WhoPinchedMyName wrote:
Q: who knows even less than who?
They have a term definition problem. And both failed to recognize that. Definition of a TCP Push. 1. There are two actors: server and client. These do NOT define implementation but rather how each behaves. 2. A 'server' is waiting for a connection. 3. A 'client' opens a TCP connection. This is exact step defines the push. The one that opens it is the only one that can be defined as doing the push. 4. The 'client' sends a message to the 'server'. What if the 'server' sends a message to the 'client'. Doesn't matter. It can't do that until the 'client' opens the connection. A browser, in general, uses HTTP which is built on TCP. So HTTP in any discussion is irrelevant. A browser, as used by the vast majority of the public, does not have a public IP. A browser, the common ones do not act as server because of that (at least for this discussion.) It would be pointless because without a public IP nothing on the 'internet' could do step #3 in the above list. ------------------------------------------------ Web designers use API/libraries which use terminology that uses the term 'push' which has nothing to do with the above. That sort of push does require that the browser acts as a client (see list above). Terminology does not change that the 'client' (browser) must first open the connection. An easy example of this is when a user asks for a report that takes a long time to run. They might sit there refreshing the page waiting seconds, minutes or hours for it to show up. Or the web designer might make the page refresh on its own. Thus at some point the user knows that the report is ready. But if the browser is closed there is no way for the report service to 'push' a notification that the report is done to the browser.
OK... but isn't that more or less what Wombat is saying? The only one that can open a connection is the user's browser - they are the client - and the server can only "push" a notification to them once they (the client) have opened a conection. What's puzzling Muppet then is, if this is the case, how it is called a "push" - it's just a case of the client polling the server until the server says "OK, now I have new message for you" and returning it - that's not really any different from a client pull, and can be done with a standard JavaScript setInteraval function and AJAX call... (and when a user subscribes, set a persistent cookie that tells the page to initiates this every time it is opened).
-
OK... but isn't that more or less what Wombat is saying? The only one that can open a connection is the user's browser - they are the client - and the server can only "push" a notification to them once they (the client) have opened a conection. What's puzzling Muppet then is, if this is the case, how it is called a "push" - it's just a case of the client polling the server until the server says "OK, now I have new message for you" and returning it - that's not really any different from a client pull, and can be done with a standard JavaScript setInteraval function and AJAX call... (and when a user subscribes, set a persistent cookie that tells the page to initiates this every time it is opened).
WhoPinchedMyName wrote:
OK... but isn't that more or less what Wombat is saying? The only one that can open a connection is the user's browser - they are the client - and the server can only "push" a notification to them once they (the client) have opened a conection.
That does not contradict what I said. That is a redefinition of what the term traditionally means. So they must define the term before they can agree on what is happening.
WhoPinchedMyName wrote:
it's just a case of the client polling the server until the server says "OK
I wasn't going to read all of that but once a connection is established either side can send a request. So it is not necessary for the 'client' (my definition) to poll. However perhaps using their definition, not mine, they are redefining the term completely to suggest that the client (browser) poll is resulting in a push. That however is quite a stretch it terms not only of the original definition but even in what the meaning of 'push' is in the English language.
-
WhoPinchedMyName wrote:
OK... but isn't that more or less what Wombat is saying? The only one that can open a connection is the user's browser - they are the client - and the server can only "push" a notification to them once they (the client) have opened a conection.
That does not contradict what I said. That is a redefinition of what the term traditionally means. So they must define the term before they can agree on what is happening.
WhoPinchedMyName wrote:
it's just a case of the client polling the server until the server says "OK
I wasn't going to read all of that but once a connection is established either side can send a request. So it is not necessary for the 'client' (my definition) to poll. However perhaps using their definition, not mine, they are redefining the term completely to suggest that the client (browser) poll is resulting in a push. That however is quite a stretch it terms not only of the original definition but even in what the meaning of 'push' is in the English language.
I don't undersatand your definition of client and server. In web terms, a client is traditionally thought of as the end-user (or their browser), and a server is what sends them pages/data/whatever upon request. A server can only know if a client is still connected if it receives something from the client. So a so-called "push notification" (from ther server to client) can only happen if the server has had such a "something" establishing (or keeping alive) a connection - that "something" telling it where to push the notification to. SO how does this differ from the client using a simple AJAX call on a setTimeout to ask the server if it has anything new it wants to say? As far as I can make out, the only difference is that it can run as some kind of background service - well, whooppee, I can do without that. Seems a whole lot of effort for little benefit, though I guess someone likes it. It certiany seems to be popular (amongst web devs anyway; not so sure about end users.)
-
I don't undersatand your definition of client and server. In web terms, a client is traditionally thought of as the end-user (or their browser), and a server is what sends them pages/data/whatever upon request. A server can only know if a client is still connected if it receives something from the client. So a so-called "push notification" (from ther server to client) can only happen if the server has had such a "something" establishing (or keeping alive) a connection - that "something" telling it where to push the notification to. SO how does this differ from the client using a simple AJAX call on a setTimeout to ask the server if it has anything new it wants to say? As far as I can make out, the only difference is that it can run as some kind of background service - well, whooppee, I can do without that. Seems a whole lot of effort for little benefit, though I guess someone likes it. It certiany seems to be popular (amongst web devs anyway; not so sure about end users.)
WhoPinchedMyName wrote:
I don't undersatand your definition of client and server
My first response defined those specifically.
2. A 'server' is waiting for a connection.
3. A 'client' opens a TCP connection. This is exact step defines the push. The one that opens it is the only one that can be defined as doing the push.Too much detail for this but TCP is a protocol that defines communication and establishing the connection in the first place requires a 'client' and a 'server'. Using specifically and only the definitions above. Do not confuse those with what you might think of when using a browser and what it connects to (certainly related and it does use the protocol but it definitely uses layers on top of those.)
WhoPinchedMyName wrote:
a client is traditionally thought of as the end-user (or their browser), and a server is what sends them pages/data/whatever upon request.
That is either phrased badly or is wrong. The traditional browser server idiom is that the browser requests (a specific type of message/data) and the server responds (a specific type of message/data) to that request. In terms of TCP (not HTTP) the server does in fact 'send' the response based on what the client (browser) 'sent' the request.
WhoPinchedMyName wrote:
So a so-called "push notification" (from ther server to client) can only happen if the server has had such a "something" establishing (or keeping alive) a connection - that "something" telling it where to push the notification to
I can't even suggest that is phrased incorrectly. It is just wrong. There is no communication without an open socket. None. Nothing can be sent in any way from any side unless the connection already exists. There are two parts to the socket/connection 1. Open the socket 2. Use the socket. Messages and communication from either side only happens with #2.
WhoPinchedMyName wrote:
SO how does this differ from the client using a simple AJAX call on a setTimeout to
Now you are confusing how libraries and protocols that live on TOP of TCP work. And perhaps because their documentation is confusing and the documentation is overloading terms for their own reasons. It does not matter what those 'claim' to do. They must all follow the rules of TCP because otherwi