Architecture questions

[Samy Alzahrani]

Hi,

I have some questions regarding allowing the backend to do some additional work along with sharejs, but I am confused on which is the best approach.

• Should the client use the same BCSocket instance used by sharejs to send other messages? or is it better to create another BCSocket instance?
• Is it better to run another server instance on the server at a different port and send the other work there?
• Other options?

Thank you,

Samy

[Joseph Gentle]

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Samy Alzahrani <samyal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have some questions regarding allowing the backend to do some additional
> work along with sharejs, but I am confused on which is the best approach.
>
> Should the client use the same BCSocket instance used by sharejs to send
> other messages? or is it better to create another BCSocket instance?

Because of per-host connection limits, you're better off if you can
funnel all messages through one connection.

> Is it better to run another server instance on the server at a different
> port and send the other work there?

Up to you. It should work either way. But its better if the client
only has one stream to the backend. If you want to split a single
stream on the backend between multiple processes you'll add a fair bit
of complexity.

-J

> Other options?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Samy
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "ShareJS" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sharejs+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.