Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userA Comparison of Push and Pull Techniques for Ajax
235
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Ali Mesbah
Publication date
2007
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Ajax applications are designed to have high user interactivity and low user-perceived latency. Real-time dynamic web data such as news headlines, stock tickers, and auction updates need to be propagated to the users as soon as possible. However, Ajax still suffers from the limitations of the Webs request/response architecture which prevents servers from pushing real-time dynamic web data. Such applications usually use a pull style to obtain the latest updates, where the client actively requests the changes based on a predefined interval. It is possible to overcome this limitation by adopting a push style of interaction where the server broadcasts data when a change occurs on the server side. Both these options have their own trade-offs. This paper explores the fundamental limits of browser-based applications and analyzes push solutions for Ajax technology. It also shows the results of an empirical study comparing push and pull.
rate research
Read More
A new breed of web application, dubbed AJAX, is emerging in response to a limited degree of interactivity in large-grain stateless Web interactions. At the heart of this new approach lies a single page interaction model that facilitates rich interactivity. We have studied and experimented with several AJAX frameworks trying to understand their architectural properties. In this paper, we summarize three of these frameworks and examine their properties and introduce the SPIAR architectural style. We describe the guiding software engineering principles and the constraints chosen to induce the desired properties. The style emphasizes user interface component development, and intermediary delta-communication between client/server components, to improve user interactivity and ease of development. In addition, we use the concepts and principles to discuss various open issues in AJAX frameworks and application development.
Quantum optimal control involves setting up an objective function that evaluates the quality of an operator representing the realized process w.r.t. the target process. Here we propose a stronger objective function which incorporates not only the target operator but also a set of its orthogonal operators. We find significantly superior convergence of optimization routines with the combined influences of all the operators. We refer to this method as the $textit{push-pull}$ optimization. In particular, we describe adopting the push-pull optimization to a gradient based approach and a variational-principle based approach. We carry out extensive numerical simulations of the push-pull optimization of quantum controls on a pair of Ising coupled qubits. Finally, we demonstrate its experimental application by preparing a long-lived singlet-order in a two-qubit system using NMR techniques.
A classical result of Schubert calculus is an inductive description of Schubert cycles using divided difference (or push-pull) operators in Chow rings. We define convex geometric analogs of push-pull operators and describe their applications to the theory of Newton-Okounkov convex bodies. Convex geometric push-pull operators yield an inductive construction of Newton-Okounkov polytopes of Bott-Samelson varieties. In particular, we construct a Minkowski sum of Feigin-Fourier-Littelmann-Vinberg polytopes using convex geometric push-pull operators in type A.
Mobile sensor networks are important for several strategic applications devoted to monitoring critical areas. In such hostile scenarios, sensors cannot be deployed manually and are either sent from a safe location or dropped from an aircraft. Mobile devices permit a dynamic deployment reconfiguration that improves the coverage in terms of completeness and uniformity. In this paper we propose a distributed algorithm for the autonomous deployment of mobile sensors called Push&Pull. According to our proposal, movement decisions are made by each sensor on the basis of locally available information and do not require any prior knowledge of the operating conditions or any manual tuning of key parameters. We formally prove that, when a sufficient number of sensors are available, our approach guarantees a complete and uniform coverage. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the algorithm execution always terminates preventing movement oscillations. Numerous simulations show that our algorithm reaches a complete coverage within reasonable time with moderate energy consumption, even when the target area has irregular shapes. Performance comparisons between Push&Pull and one of the most acknowledged algorithms show how the former one can efficiently reach a more uniform and complete coverage under a wide range of working scenarios.
This work provides the first study to explore the interaction of update propagation with and without fine-grained synchronization (push vs. pull), emerging coherence protocols (GPU vs. DeNovo coherence), and software-centric consistency models (DRF0, DRF1, and DRFrlx) for graph workloads on emerging integrated GPU-CPU systems with native unified shared memory. We study 6 graph applications with 6 graph inputs for a total of 36 workloads running on 12 system (hardware+software) configurations reflecting the above design space of update propagation, coherence, and memory consistency. We make three key contributions. First, we show that there is no single best system configuration for all workloads, motivating systems with flexible coherence and consistency support. Second, we develop a model to accurately predict the best system configuration -- this model can be used by software designers to decide on push vs. pull and the consistency model and by flexible hardware to invoke the appropriate coherence and consistency configuration for the given workload. Third, we show that the design dimensions explored here are inter-dependent, reinforcing the need for software-hardware co-design in the above design dimensions. For example, software designers deciding on push vs. pull must consider the consistency model supported by hardware -- in some cases, push maybe better if hardware supports DRFrlx while pull may be better if hardware does not support DRFrlx.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
