Talk:Push technology

Push distribution?

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable podcasts and podcast-related information on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance 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)[reply]

This wikipedia article is trash.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This article is no longer trash / Podcasting

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)[reply]

Expansion request

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

IMAP not a push technology?

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)[reply]

(but not in Safari on the iPhone)

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)[reply]

Push technology in Windows Mobile 5/6 ?!?

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)[reply]

Comet is a push general use

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.