Talk:Push technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Push distribution?[edit]

WikiProject Podcasting  
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's knowledge of notable podcasts, and podcast-related information. If you would like to participate, don't hesitate to join!
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 

Re: proposed merger of push media and push technology, it is suggested that a better structure is to merge both into a new topic called "push distribution"

This would coordinate with the digital distribution article, and can have sections on the media aspects and the technology aspects, without making one subordinate to the other. Rreisman 15:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This wikipedia article is trash.[edit]

You can help by rewriting it from scratch.

Seriously, epic legends of the small group of heroes who scavenged RSS from the ruins of PointCast? Excuse me, I seem to have come to the wrong place. Could you perhaps give me directions to the encyclopedia I heard was around here? 88.112.2.159 08:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've turned it into a stub again, as it was full of uncited claims, original research, and unencyclopedic prose. Too bad, I was hoping to read a bit more about the story of Push. Perhaps some day someone knowledgeable will write it.--Eloquence* 08:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is no longer trash / Podcasting[edit]

I'd say this article is not trash and should not be merged with push media. It is focused on what the term really meant and was the buzz in the mid 90s.. PointCast and Marimba and Channels. The hype pretty much ended with the arrival of IE4, which had an RSS-like functionality built-in. You should be able to find dozens of magazines from that time headlining about push technology. It has pretty much nothing to do with media streaming and RSS has indeed taken that place, even if technologically in a very inferior way. Considering this history, what the hell does Podcasting have to do with this? Removing this box from the article:

--lynX 06:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Expansion request[edit]

"Push" is a general concept and applies to non-web technology, such as SMTP. -- Beland 20:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

IMAP not a push technology?[edit]

The article claims that IMAP is a pull technology and that only appears to support push due to the mail client polling the server. This is false for clients and servers that support the IMAP IDLE command (which is not uncommon these days) --James (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(but not in Safari on the iPhone)[edit]

HTTP Server Push does seem to be supported just fine on the iPhone - I use HTTP server push to host a streaming webcam and it works perfectly on my iPhone.

Since this is an unattributed source, I'm going to remove this line from the article unless there any any objections. --Mwongozi (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it depends on what method is used. iPhones don't let JavaScript run for longer than 5 seconds, so this complicates things if JavaScript is being used to hold a connection with the server for an extended period of time. KenFehling (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Push technology in Windows Mobile 5/6 ?!?[edit]

I have a Windows Mobile 6 Smartphone. The E-Mail client (Outlook Mobile) only has a feature allowing the application to be configured to pull the E-Mails every so-and-so minutes. This would NOT be a true push application, as it employs pure pull technology.

I therefor beg to oppose the notion made in the article. --mchale7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.149.174.18 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

When tied to an Exchange Server, WinMo 6 is definitely push. Mine is. --Mharen (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comet is a push general use[edit]

Comet is a word that HAS BEEN USED. I know damien.rf does not think it has been used.... but then he has deleted all the content on the comet page that shows where it has been used. I'm not saying that it has been widely used, in fact in 2007 I was a bit skeptical that the term would make it and I always said "Comet Ajax Push". But in 2008 the term is making significant progress and most in the industry just say comet now. There are stanard bodies using the term (JCP JSR-315), university papers, technical conference etc. but because most of these cite a group of authors that contribute to the cometdaily website, we have been labelled as lobbyists and damien.rf has removed the content.

The comet page should link this push page and vice versa. Comet is linked under one of the technologies - but that is factually incorrect. Comet is not 1 specific technology, it is any push technology applied in the Ajax space. For example, comet can use long-polling or it can use mutli-part-mime server push.... should it be linked from both those technologies? No it should be linked from the general section.

I have put the comet link back in the general section. You cannot argue that the term is not used as there is a wikipedia page for it and dispite the best efforts of some, they have not been able to justify it's removal. If you want to argue that comet does not exist then you should make that arguement on the comet page first and get it deleted. Please do not delete valid links from this page as some sort of rear guard action in your compaigns to remove the comet page.

Gregwilkins (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop advertising. "Comet" is a design pattern of Ajax and as the Comet talk page shows there are a lot of issues with it at the moment, there is not even consensus on a definition of Comet. Right now "Comet" is not a well known terminology outside a small circle of Ajax developers and even if it would, it has to go into the technology section (together with other relevant technologies) than into the general use section. To show you how less notable Comet is, the Ajax (programming) article doesn't even mention it. Right now there is a link from push technologies article to Comet, should be fair enough. - 213.115.160.72 (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
It suggest no further Comet related edits in this article, assuming there are no significant errors, until the dispute in the Comet article has been resolved. Otherwise this just spreads the problem to more places. - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Why are two other commercial products allowed in the links section, but the link i added to Liberator was removed? This is getting a bit silly now. Yes there is some personal and commercial interest with some parties involved in this technology, as with any technology, but we are also enthusiasts of the technology and its not like we are going around posting links in irrelevant places simply for personal gain. It seems by editing out all relatively new products and referenced articles around this subject you are leaving all the wikipedia articles as useless history lessons about obselete technology rather than any useful information for people searching for information on the subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martintyler (talkcontribs) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
If you are related to a (commercial) product you shouldn't do that. Please see Wikipedia policies about neutrality and external links, the manual of style is a great starting point. - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope you are paying the same attention to the rest of Wikipedia which is full of external links that are against these policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.5.177.145 (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, wasnt meant to be anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martintyler (talkcontribs) 23:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
That was very impolite, Martintyler. Wikipedia is a voluntary-driven working-in-progress. Of course there are problems in "the rest of Wikipedia", since we're a WIP. Using this fact to discourage volunteers to fix this article is completely against the spirit of this project. --Damiens.rf 01:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It was not meant to be impolite, I am new to this kind of discussion on Wikipedia and I am just very surprised at what is going on. Just about every wikipedia page I have visited previously does not seem to follow these rules as strictly as they are being imposed here. To me it appears that the rules are being followed to the letter rather than the spirit (as i understood it). Some very useful references/links have been removed from articles in this subject and i am trying to figure out why it is being done, as i am trying to understand how this is helping the 'user' of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martintyler (talkcontribs) 08:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. If there are other links that violate Wikipedia policies, please let others know or fix it yourself. Getting rid of advertising and spam is a never ending effort and there are whole groups of people and tools devoted to it. Please don't take it personal. :) - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It was perhaps a logical fallacy, but I fail to see how you could interpret it as impolite whatsoever, much less “very impolite”. The suggestion that Martintyler is attempting to discourage volunteers is ludicrous. Go back and re-read WP:AGF. Sheesh. —jacobolus (t) 03:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Will the anonymous 213.115.160.72 please actually go and read some of the cited links. Comet is NOT a server push technology as defined by this page. This page defines server push as using the multi-part mime type. Comet can use that, but also uses streaming and long polling techniques. The actual citation for comet here is to an article about comet using steaming techniques, not multipart mime type. Comet is a GENERAL usage of push different push technologies - not a specific technology. The link as it is now is simply incorrect - please provide a citation of a comet implmentation that uses multipart-mime/replace ? I don't know of any! Gregwilkins (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, how can a link to comet be advertising? Comet is a word that applies to a general technique and there are many competative companies with self-described comet implementations. Many of the implementations are open source. Gregwilkins (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Since a couple of days some Wikipedia editors try to find out what Comet is and how notable it is, please see ongoing discussion on the talk page. I hope you understand that without an agreed and comprehensive definition of what "Comet" is, it is hard if not impossible to find the appropriate context of "Comet" within this article. At the moment the Comet article states something different to what you just wrote. Can we keep these discussions to the Comet article, if that is fine with you? As soon as the dispute is solved it will be much easier to update this and any other related article. Please don't see this process as an impediment, it is normal for Wikipedia editors to verify content after material has been challenged. Hope you are fine with this suggestion. - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The creation of an other technologies section for the comet link, is an OK compromise. However it is still not really correct and I still think general usage section is the right spot for it. But others obviously feel the general section is too prominant and somehow comet is not deserving enough to be mentioned in a single sentance in the fifth paragraph listed after a long dead proprietary technology (which itself is not a general usage). But at least this compromise is not blantanty wrong like it was before Gregwilkins (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

this article is poorly written: confusing, unsourced, inaccurate, badly organized[edit]

The technologies section of this article is only a discussion of pushing to browsers. Everything it says was better explained (in a more organized and coherent fashion) by the Comet (programming) article as it existed 3 weeks ago. The relation of these “technologies” to each-other is not made clear, nor that they are all implementations of the same thing. This section should, in WP:Summary style, become a summary of content from the Comet page, and a much fuller discussion of push email and other (actually distinct) technologies should be added to round it out. I challenge all those who think the Comet article was worth being torn down to nothing, to actually try reading that article, and then reading this one, and then explaining why any of this article’s content meets any higher standards than what that one had. —jacobolus (t) 01:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you just stop advertising Comet evereywhere (you know that you have a conflict of interest in this matter)? This article is not another article about an Ajax push technology, it is about push technologies in general. - 09:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.115.160.70 (talk)
That is precisely the problem. This article should have as its focus “push technologies in general” but currently mostly ignores everything but pushing data to javascript callbacks in a browser. —jacobolus (t) 10:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I don’t have any particular interest in “advertising Comet everywhere”, but I would prefer if Wikipedia articles were remotely readable. This one currently is not, mostly due to its unclear focus, and lack of treatment of anything but browser-based technologies. Instead, it should provide a full discussion of push email, online chat, other push messaging systems, etc., as well as the relation of “push” to “streaming media”, and similar topics. Please please feel free to add to this article if you have expertise. —jacobolus (t) 11:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Here’s how I think its overall section outline should go, in the short–medium term (longer term there may be more relevant sections to add). Notice most of these sections can be linked out to other articles as “main topics” using summary style:
  • Introduction / Lead section
  • Concept — what does “push” mean in general, how does that apply to computer systems?
  • Online Chat – some basics of online chat
  • Push Email – how does push email differ from regular email? why do users care? how is push email currently used, etc., though much of this info may already be on other wikipedia pages, and can be simply summarized
  • Push in the browser — currently most of the article; this material should be thinned out, as much of it is irrelevant
  • Other messaging systems — whatever doesn’t fit in the above categories.
  • History — if enough relevant content can be found, add a history section.
What do others think? (edit to add: oh, also some discussion of multiplayer game protocols, etc. should be added) —jacobolus (t) 11:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like too much. We need to collect more push technologies and such a section already exists, for generic introduction and concepts there is already the introduction and the section about general use . -- 83.254.214.72 (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

publish / subscribe model is push technology?[edit]

I'm concerned about the start of this article: "Push services are often based on information preferences expressed in advance. This is called a publish/subscribe model. A client might "subscribe" to various information "channels". Whenever new content is available on one of those channels, the server would push that information out to the user."

Is a publish/subscribe model push? Surely the request originates with the client (with a frequency determined by user settings). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogy403 (talkcontribs) 11:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. A subscriber then has updates to the channel pushed without explicitly requesting each one. This article is currently terrible though, so feel free to work on it. --jacobolus (t) 10:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

External push server links[edit]

Hey does anybody know anymore push server links?

There's already a link to the Ajax Push Engine which is a decent open-source effort. I'm adding a link to StreamHub which has a pretty good community (read free :) edition. i think its useful - a lot of people not unlike myself came to this page to find out more about how to implement HTTP Push.

Please discuss. Danke. :)—Preceding unsigned comment added by CometGuru (talkcontribs)

Please stop adding links to this commercial site. See WP:ELNO points 4 and 5. - MrOllie (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)