Re :Chatroom (formerly shoutbox)

[carmel_andrews]

Keep getting this error (Chat no.2 i think) when I click on the chat link

 

Are only paid subscribers/ paid members allowed to access the chat area...or do i have a dodgy version of IE that keeps generating the error

Edited December 7, 2009 by carmel_andrews

[Albert]

Keep getting this error (Chat no.2 i think) when I click on the chat link

 

Are only paid subscribers/ paid members allowed to access the chat area...or do i have a dodgy version of IE that keeps generating the error

Right now only Subscribers have access to the chat, as this module incurs an additional yearly cost for the forum. I do plan on occasionally making the chat available to everyone, for some "scheduled" chats, but right now "IP.Chat" is still in beta testing so that won't happen until it is formally released.

 

I wasn't aware the "Chat" link was visible to everyone else, I need to take a look at that.

 

..Al

[BDW]

Keep getting this error (Chat no.2 i think) when I click on the chat link

 

Are only paid subscribers/ paid members allowed to access the chat area...or do i have a dodgy version of IE that keeps generating the error

Indeed, good friend, only subscribers are allowed in the chat area.

 

 

ACK! Jeez Al, beat me by a second....

Edited December 7, 2009 by brandondwright

[iwan-iwanowitsch-goratschin]

Subscribers only.

[+retroclouds]

I just played around with the chat functionality a bit. Seems to work fine so far.

 

One thing I did notice is that in order to keep the chat up-to-date, the browser is doing

a post to the chat server every 3 seconds (tested by watching network traffic with the Firefox "Firebug" plugin).

 

Now even though there is nothing basically wrong with the browser polling approach, it can cause

a high workload on your webserver.

 

Imagine 50 users being in the chat application. Even though they are not doing any typing, your webserver

will get 50 * 20 = 1.000 requests in a minute. That is a minimum of 60.000 requests in one hour or

an average of 16.6 hits a second.

 

Unfortunatly I don't think there is no easy solution to this.

Except perhaps doing a java applet approach where there is a persistent network connection between the

applet and chat server. Persistent connections are very rare when using javascript.

 

For javascript there is the COMET approach where the server pushes data to the browser instead of the browser pulling data

from the server, but that might not be easily doable in this case (could have drawbacks with active firewall, proxy, etc)

 

ok, enough tech bable for now, just thought I'd share

[Albert]

One thing I did notice is that in order to keep the chat up-to-date, the browser is doing

a post to the chat server every 3 seconds (tested by watching network traffic with the Firefox "Firebug" plugin).

 

Now even though there is nothing basically wrong with the browser polling approach, it can cause

a high workload on your webserver.

Thanks for taking the time to try out the chat.

 

If you look at the requests you should see that they are going to a server owned by Invision, so this won't have any affect on AtariAge's server. This is one of the reasons they will be charging for this service, as they will have to maintain a range of servers depending on how many of their customers purchase this module (probably quite a few) and how busy those respective chat sessions are.

 

I am personally not a big fan of Java-based chats, as they typically take several seconds to start running when you load the browser and they typically don't integrate quite as well with the rest of the page (non-standard UI, graphics, colors, etc. often clash, etc). The same is true with Flash-based chats.

 

It will be interesting to see how this evolves, as they haven't started adding features to IP.Chat yet (besides the basic "Kick" and "Ban" features for moderators).

 

..Al

[+Random Terrain]

(besides the basic "Kick" and "Ban" features for moderators)

It sure would suck to be a subscriber and get kicked or banned from the chat room.

 

"But I paid my money, so I should be allowed to say anything I want!"

 

"I don't care how much you paid, you can't go around telling people to fist their grandmothers when you don't agree with them."

 

"Oh, no . . . oh, no, no, no, I see how that could be misinterpreted. In my country, 'fist' means 'punch' and 'fist your grandmother' is a common saying which generally means 'don't be stupid'. It just occurred to me that 'fist' means a completely different thing to Americans. No, please do not fist your grandmother, even if she asked you to and provides the lube."

[Albert]

It sure would suck to be a subscriber and get kicked or banned from the chat room.

 

"But I paid my money, so I should be allowed to say anything I want!"

I would not hesitate to kick someone out of the chat room regardless.

 

..Al

[+retroclouds]

If you look at the requests you should see that they are going to a server owned by Invision, so this won't have any affect on AtariAge's server. This is one of the reasons they will be charging for this service, as they will have to maintain a range of servers depending on how many of their customers purchase this module (probably quite a few) and how busy those respective chat sessions are.

 

I am personally not a big fan of Java-based chats, as they typically take several seconds to start running when you load the browser and they typically don't integrate quite as well with the rest of the page (non-standard UI, graphics, colors, etc. often clash, etc). The same is true with Flash-based chats.

 

As it is not impacting on the AtariAge servers you should be just fine

I second your opion on java applets, they just don't integrate that well.

considering all in all, I think the chat functionality will be a great feature.

Looking forward on seeing how it evolves

[+Stephen]

(besides the basic "Kick" and "Ban" features for moderators)

It sure would suck to be a subscriber and get kicked or banned from the chat room.

 

"But I paid my money, so I should be allowed to say anything I want!"

 

"I don't care how much you paid, you can't go around telling people to fist their grandmothers when you don't agree with them."

 

"Oh, no . . . oh, no, no, no, I see how that could be misinterpreted. In my country, 'fist' means 'punch' and 'fist your grandmother' is a common saying which generally means 'don't be stupid'. It just occurred to me that 'fist' means a completely different thing to Americans. No, please do not fist your grandmother, even if she asked you to and provides the lube."

LMAO - you are one sick puppy RT. Hope to see you in the chat sometime. And please, no talk of fisting, or punching, or family members in general

 

Stephen Anderson

[Albert]

And please, no talk of fisting, or punching, or family members in general

Seconded.

 

..Al