|
|
| Author |
Message |
GigIRC
Lurker
Joined: 07 Sep 2009
Posts: 106
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
 Posted: Sep 08, 2009 10:23am Post subject: Java or Flash |
 |
|
| does anyone know of a good java or flash applet that can be added to ones website and also is there code to add to your website that will allow users to register their channel via the website then produce the code to embed their chatroom to the users site |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Trixar_za
Eleet
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 613
Location: South Africa
|
| Posted: Sep 08, 2009 12:16pm Post subject: |
|
|
Check out http://searchirc.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=51179 on this forum for clients, because I named a few in my one post.
As for the embedding of chatrooms into websites, I would suggest using mibbit which can be added in with JavaScript.
Here is an example of how I did it with my personal website. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PingBad
Post Whore
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 3001
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Sep 08, 2009 4:37pm Post subject: |
|
|
| if you're after something Java based, I would suggest PjIRC which can be customized to your needs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GigIRC
Lurker
Joined: 07 Sep 2009
Posts: 106
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| Posted: Sep 09, 2009 4:20am Post subject: Thank you Mate |
|
|
Trixar_za thank you so much for recommending mibbit wow it works a treat and my problem has been solved
Kudos to you mate
Timmy©2009
Founder
GigIRC[dot]com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hated_Rogue
none
Joined: 13 Mar 2010
Posts: 23
Location: Hot Springs, Arkansas
|
| Posted: May 07, 2010 11:51pm Post subject: mibbit is ok |
|
|
| Mibbit is ok, but lots of networks such as freenode ban mibbit. I myself use it from my social network site http://sindustries.ning.com ....but when my main website is up, I am thinking more along the lines of pjirc or cgi::irc ....but mibbit is a quick and easy solution, as ugly as it is. BTW adobe flash is EVIL. I dont know why 80% of the internet feels they need to include some sort of flash content in their website. Its annoying. adobe flash is infecting the internet at an astonishing rate, just like ubuntu users that think ubuntu is an OS instead of just a distribution of GNU/Linux. Ok, I shall end my drunken rambling now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jobe
Eleet
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 526
Location: Lurking in the shadows of some random channel!
|
| Posted: May 09, 2010 5:46pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Personally, with the recent introduction of qwebirc, if I had to chose between that and CGIIRC I would go with qwebirc now. Although it requires running it's on httpd, you can, with development versions get around that with Apache's proxy features to proxy through to qwebirc and qwebirc will use the IP Apache includes in the X-Forwarded-For header (restricted by proxy source IP thankfully). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mentor
Newbie
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Posts: 91
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: May 16, 2010 8:52am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jobe wrote: | | Personally, with the recent introduction of qwebirc, if I had to chose between that and CGIIRC I would go with qwebirc now. Although it requires running it's on httpd, you can, with development versions get around that with Apache's proxy features to proxy through to qwebirc and qwebirc will use the IP Apache includes in the X-Forwarded-For header (restricted by proxy source IP thankfully). |
Qwebirc uses its own web server for a good reason. Using Apache for IRC connections is a bad idea, and will likely buckle once you get a decent amount of users using it (e.g., above 20 or so), as its not designed for long lived connections.
Why not just run qwebirc on its own IP address?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jobe
Eleet
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 526
Location: Lurking in the shadows of some random channel!
|
| Posted: May 18, 2010 5:53am Post subject: |
|
|
| mentor wrote: | | Qwebirc uses its own web server for a good reason. Using Apache for IRC connections is a bad idea, and will likely buckle once you get a decent amount of users using it (e.g., above 20 or so), as its not designed for long lived connections. |
To be honest you could say that about ANY http implimentation if it's not properly configured, Apache when tuned and configured apropriately can handle the load fine. Just as qwebirc if not configured properly can buckle under the same loads. Not to mention I only listed Apache as an example, there are other httpd's out there just as capable if not more capable of not buckling under the load.
| mentor wrote: | | Why not just run qwebirc on its own IP address? |
Amongst other things thats the kind of attitude that has resulted in the IP address shortage everyone bangs on about. By that I mean "oh theres loads, just use another" attitude. (No offence or insult intended) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[DiMENSiON]
Eleet
Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 667
|
| Posted: May 18, 2010 8:13pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I've recently been using mibbit at public computers and other public terminals and i have to say, it's probably the most pleasurable web based IRC client i've ever used. Havn't used any of the other options for some time now so they may well have come some distance themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mentor
Newbie
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Posts: 91
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: May 18, 2010 10:30pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jobe wrote: | | mentor wrote: | | Qwebirc uses its own web server for a good reason. Using Apache for IRC connections is a bad idea, and will likely buckle once you get a decent amount of users using it (e.g., above 20 or so), as its not designed for long lived connections. |
To be honest you could say that about ANY http implimentation if it's not properly configured, Apache when tuned and configured apropriately can handle the load fine. Just as qwebirc if not configured properly can buckle under the same loads. Not to mention I only listed Apache as an example, there are other httpd's out there just as capable if not more capable of not buckling under the load. |
I agree, I could say the same thing for other web servers, as well (and would had they been mentioned). Most conventional threaded/multi-process web servers are not designed for long lived connections, which is why I think using Apache in this instance is a horrible idea. It's using the wrong tool for the job, when there are better tools available (e.g., the web server embedded with qwebirc, tornado, etc.).
And, in my experience, qwebirc works just fine in its default configuration (over 300 users on a single instance). I can't say the same for Apache (having used different solutions with Apache in the past, and as someone who configures Apache web servers daily due to my job).
There is a big difference between a web server coping with normal/high web traffic and long lived connections (e.g., those required for IRC). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Register
Log in
