Hello,

Some pages in ASP.NET application perform very process-intensive tasks
(parsing large flat files, saving data to SQL Server, etc.. ) Some tasks
might take longer to execute than users' expectations. New thread(s) will be
started for these process-intensive tasks, so asp.net process can take over
and send response to the client's browsers.

Does anyone see any issues with this scenario?
How can application inform user when thread is completed or failed after
response was sent to a browser.
Can some kind of client-side object maintain connection with the server and
inform a user of the progress and when thread is completed/failed.
Any other alternatives?

Thank you in advance.

Check out
Sending 1000's of Emails from your webpage
http://www.aspnetemail.com/samples/webmailer.aspx

I built it for customers who need to spawn a new thread, in asp.net to send
out their newsletter.

hth,
Dave
www.aspNetEmail.com


"Lenny" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello,
>
> Some pages in ASP.NET application perform very process-intensive tasks
> (parsing large flat files, saving data to SQL Server, etc.. ) Some tasks
> might take longer to execute than users' expectations. New thread(s) will
be
> started for these process-intensive tasks, so asp.net process can take
over
> and send response to the client's browsers.
>
> Does anyone see any issues with this scenario?
> How can application inform user when thread is completed or failed after
> response was sent to a browser.
> Can some kind of client-side object maintain connection with the server
and
> inform a user of the progress and when thread is completed/failed.
> Any other alternatives?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
>

I've got a similar process.

User uploads a couple of 100+meg flat files, we process them for bulk mail
center codes, postnet barcodes, etc and separate flat files based on the
mail center. The entire result is emailed as a zip package, and an entry in
the web-based archive.

Processing runs 1 to 15 minutes, depending on client connection speed and
size of job.

I leave the process running on the initial thread, sending a "+" sign every
100 rows to indicate progress. Worked fine until WINDOWS 2003 and VS 2003 -
now the process dies EXACTLY 105 seconds into the job. I've researched
Machine.Config, Web.Config etc, etc. (Even posted here - nobody responded)
and I have yet to find the problem.

That's my only concern with your project.

BTW, we put a message at the top, just as processing starts:
"This process will continue to completion, even if you close the browser"

That helps... You can monitor Response.IsClientConnected to see if the
escape (stop) your page, or navigate out. Then you can kill the process.

G.L.


"Lenny" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello,
>
> Some pages in ASP.NET application perform very process-intensive tasks
> (parsing large flat files, saving data to SQL Server, etc.. ) Some tasks
> might take longer to execute than users' expectations. New thread(s) will
be
> started for these process-intensive tasks, so asp.net process can take
over
> and send response to the client's browsers.
>
> Does anyone see any issues with this scenario?
> How can application inform user when thread is completed or failed after
> response was sent to a browser.
> Can some kind of client-side object maintain connection with the server
and
> inform a user of the progress and when thread is completed/failed.
> Any other alternatives?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
>

> Check out
> Sending 1000's of Emails from your webpage
> http://www.aspnetemail.com/samples/webmailer.aspx
>
I downloaded your demo, this would work great for me. Thanks a lot!!!