Re: CFHTTP Alternatives

2004-09-03 Thread Dave Carabetta
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:16:17 -0400, Russ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Since CFHTTP support is broken in all versions since CF 4.5 (as in
 CFHTTPPARAM automatically urlencodes all the names and values, and there's
 nothing we can do about it), I was wondering if there are any CFMX
 alternatives to CFHTTP, short of writing your own java classes every time
 you need to post something.Isn't there a way to extend the CFHTTPPARAM tag
 or something and modify certain methods not to URLEncode the data?
 

Dude, you just have to read the docs:

http://livedocs.macromedia.com/coldfusion/6.1/htmldocs/tags-p59.htm#wp1100049

We use it extensively just fine. Look at the encoded attribute.

Regards,
Dave.
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]
 [Donations and Support]




RE: CFHTTP Alternatives

2004-09-03 Thread Russ
I did read the docs. The docs state:

encoded

Optional

Yes

Applies to FormField and CGI types; ignored for all other types. Specifies
whether to URLEncode the form field or header.

I am using it on a cookie type.

Russ

_

From: Dave Carabetta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 10:52 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFHTTP Alternatives

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:16:17 -0400, Russ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Since CFHTTP support is broken in all versions since CF 4.5 (as in
 CFHTTPPARAM automatically urlencodes all the names and values, and there's
 nothing we can do about it), I was wondering if there are any CFMX
 alternatives to CFHTTP, short of writing your own java classes every time
 you need to post something.Isn't there a way to extend the CFHTTPPARAM
tag
 or something and modify certain methods not to URLEncode the data?
 

Dude, you just have to read the docs:

http://livedocs.macromedia.com/coldfusion/6.1/htmldocs/tags-p59.htm#wp110004
9

We use it extensively just fine. Look at the encoded attribute.

Regards,
Dave.

_
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]
 [Donations and Support]




Re: CFHTTP Alternatives

2004-09-03 Thread Andrew Grosset
There is an alternative written in c++

http://www.cftagstore.com/tags/cfxhttp5.cfm

I havn't used it but the claims made on the website are impressive.

Andrew.
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]
 [Donations and Support]




Re: CFHTTP Alternatives

2004-09-03 Thread Dave Carabetta
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:18:05 -0400, Russ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I did read the docs. The docs state:
 
 encoded
 
 Optional
 
 Yes
 
 Applies to FormField and CGI types; ignored for all other types. Specifies
 whether to URLEncode the form field or header.
 
 I am using it on a cookie type.
 

Ah, you never mentioned you were using it on cookies. However, is this
really an issue for you? We have a PDF engine written in Python that
runs on Linux that does a callback to a CF page, and the cookies
transfer fine for us (and if they weren't, our stuff would break
because it relies on the CFID/CFTOKEN values in the user's cookie for
client variable stuff).

Regards,
Dave.
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]
 [Donations and Support]




RE: CFHTTP Alternatives

2004-09-03 Thread Russ
Yes, it really is an issue, as several sites that I'm pulling the data from
require login, and they don't recognize the URLEncoded session cookies sent
by CF. 

Russ

_

From: Dave Carabetta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 11:31 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFHTTP Alternatives

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:18:05 -0400, Russ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I did read the docs. The docs state:
 
 encoded
 
 Optional
 
 Yes
 
 Applies to FormField and CGI types; ignored for all other types. Specifies
 whether to URLEncode the form field or header.
 
 I am using it on a cookie type.
 

Ah, you never mentioned you were using it on cookies. However, is this
really an issue for you? We have a PDF engine written in Python that
runs on Linux that does a callback to a CF page, and the cookies
transfer fine for us (and if they weren't, our stuff would break
because it relies on the CFID/CFTOKEN values in the user's cookie for
client variable stuff).

Regards,
Dave.

_
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]
 [Donations and Support]




RE: CFHTTP Alternatives

2004-09-03 Thread Russ
Thanks Andrew, I'll try it. Seems impressive. 

Russ

_

From: Andrew Grosset [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 11:22 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFHTTP Alternatives

There is an alternative written in c++

http://www.cftagstore.com/tags/cfxhttp5.cfm

I havn't used it but the claims made on the website are impressive.

Andrew.

_
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]
 [Donations and Support]




Re: CFHTTP Alternatives

2004-09-03 Thread Jochem van Dieten
Russ wrote:
 I did read the docs. The docs state:
 
 encodedOptional Yes
 
 Applies to FormField and CGI types; ignored for all other types. Specifies
 whether to URLEncode the form field or header.
 
 I am using it on a cookie type.

IIRC you can use the CGI type to send cookies as well:
cfhttpparamtype=cgi name=Cookie value=cfid=123456 
encoded=No

Jochem
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]
 [Donations and Support]




Re: CFHTTP Alternatives

2004-09-03 Thread Dave Carabetta
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 18:01:25 +0200, Jochem van Dieten
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Russ wrote:
  I did read the docs. The docs state:
 
  encodedOptional Yes
 
  Applies to FormField and CGI types; ignored for all other types. Specifies
  whether to URLEncode the form field or header.
 
  I am using it on a cookie type.
 
 IIRC you can use the CGI type to send cookies as well:
 cfhttpparamtype=cgi name=Cookie value=cfid=123456
 encoded=No
 

Jochem's correct, as usual. I just re-checked our code (we wrote it a
long time ago), and that is, in fact, how we pass the values.

Regards,
Dave.
 [Todays Threads] 
 [This Message] 
 [Subscription] 
 [Fast Unsubscribe] 
 [User Settings]
 [Donations and Support]




Re: CFHTTP alternatives for Unix?

2002-07-16 Thread Lewis Sellers

On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:50:24 -0400, Dave Carabetta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Are there any reliable alternatives for using CFHTTP on Unix (in my case, 
Solaris, but migrating to Linux in the near future)? I need to pass large 
WDDX packets to a Python server extensively, and CFHTTP is just not an 
adequate, scalable solution. Time is also a big factor, so rolling my own 
just isn't in the cards for now.

I vaguely recall seeing a Java CFX called CFX_Sockets (or some such)
that I suppose works under Linux. Never used it however, so I can't
say for certain.

I've seen Lewis Seller's TCPClient tag, but I don't believe it works in a 
non-Windows environment. (Please let me know if I'm wrong on this)

Nope. Windows only. However, come version 3.x I do plan on porting it
to linux/freebsd finally (just so people will stop bugging me about it
:).  However, this does you no good whatsoever, as I have tenatively
scheduled myself to work on 3.x around the Winter of 2002.

(If any one wants to send me an old Solaris machine I suppose I could
port it to that as well. Haven't the slightest use for one otherwise.)

I'm using CF 4.5 SP2 right now, but will also be upgrading that in a month 
or so (either to 5 or MX, still up in the air).

So far MX seems to me, as they say, *evil*. Nice new features, but
some of the cirtical old ones just plain don't work. :)

--min

__
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists



Re: CFHTTP alternatives for Unix?

2002-07-16 Thread Zac Spitzer

Dave Carabetta wrote:
 Are there any reliable alternatives for using CFHTTP on Unix (in my case, 
 Solaris, but migrating to Linux in the near future)? I need to pass large 
 WDDX packets to a Python server extensively, and CFHTTP is just not an 
 adequate, scalable solution. Time is also a big factor, so rolling my own 
 just isn't in the cards for now.

why not pass the url to the python server and have it call the url and 
download the packet from the other end?

z


__
This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for 
dependable ColdFusion Hosting.
FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists