Chatty vs Chunky Interfaces

[dee-u]

I have been reading that using Chunky interface is encouraged for scalability, though I haven't read enough discussion regarding this matter to fully comprehend it's value, in your experience guys will you encourage using Chunky over Chatty interface? And may I know your reasons?

I have been using Chatty interface and needs to know if I should switch to Chunky interface now...

Thanks!

[Arrow_Raider]

I've never even heard of those terms, can you provide some descriptions and examples?

[jmcilhinney]

Depends what you're doing and where the likely bottlenecks are. Chatty means short wait for each operation but lots of operations, so more network overhead. Chunky means fewer operations but long waits for operations to complete, plus increased memory usage in between for the large blocks of data transferred with each operation.

[jas4th]

also a Chunky interface will tend get out of sync / data will become stale more readily.

[dee-u]

Is it really possible to absolutely shy away from chatty interfaces? This seem to be a problem of this guy in this thread...

[jas4th]

Basically I would say that if you've got fast netw (ie LAN) connection and scalability won't become an issue you could use a chatty interface. But I think part of the reason the phrase was coined was trying to contain & group "transmissions" to and from the server wherever possible rather than send unnecessarily separate "transmissions" and this is appropriate for all applications.
I think that is a distinction from caching (be it in variables or other mechanisms) data on the client side that you should keep in mind.

[dee-u]

As it has been advised we should refrain from using chatty interfaces but is that really even possible?

[jas4th]

Whats the difference between chatting and talking? Its subjective - keep comms to minimum?

[dee-u]

Whats the difference between chatting and talking? Its subjective - keep comms to minimum?

Sorry but that doesn't seem to answer my question?