On Thu, 07 Jan 2010, Szak�ts Viktor wrote:
Hi,
We have hb_secondsCPU() in core, maybe code below could be
incorporated into it.
It's not exactly the same.
If possible (supported bu OS) hb_secondsCPU() returns number CPU
cycles consumed by programs not real time clock. It means that
d =
Hi,
Przemysław Czerpak wrote:
PROC main()
HB_INETINIT()
? NETIO_PROCEXISTS(127.0.0.1:2941:STR)
RETURN
but it's possible that when it's executed as startup code then
such initialization do not work and we should use hb_vmAtInit()
function. Can you verify it?
You are right.
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010, Mindaugas Kavaliauskas wrote:
Hi,
Przemysław Czerpak wrote:
PROC main()
HB_INETINIT()
? NETIO_PROCEXISTS(127.0.0.1:2941:STR)
RETURN
but it's possible that when it's executed as startup code then
such initialization do not work and we should use
Hi,
Przemysław Czerpak wrote:
2010-01-07 14:14 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)
* harbour/contrib/hbnetio/netiocli.c
! use hb_vmAtInit() to initialize NETIO - looks that winsock
initialization in startup code does not work - please test
If possible
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010, Mindaugas Kavaliauskas wrote:
Hi,
If possible please verify if this code:
PROC main()
? NETIO_PROCEXISTS(127.0.0.1:2941:STR)
RETURN
works after above modification. I cannot test it in Linux because
in WINE WINSOCK initialization is not necessary.
It still
Hi,
Przemysław Czerpak wrote:
Ups. Sorry I forgot that automatic initialization is not enabled by
default. In netiocli.c it's covered by:
#if defined( HB_NETIO_STARTUP_INIT )
[...]
#endif
Yes :) By adding a few more tracelog, I've also found this reason :)
So it's expected and
Hi,
Mindaugas Kavaliauskas wrote:
BTW how expensive (time consuming) is WINSOCK initialization in
MS-Windows?
HB_ULONG ulTime = hb_dateMilliSeconds();
hb_socketInit();
HB_TRACE( HB_TR_ALWAYS, (hb_socketInit() time=%d,
hb_dateMilliSeconds() - ulTime) );
prints:
We have hb_secondsCPU() in core, maybe code below could be
incorporated into it.
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2010 Jan 7, at 16:56, Mindaugas Kavaliauskas wrote:
Hi,
Mindaugas Kavaliauskas wrote:
BTW how expensive (time consuming) is WINSOCK initialization in MS-Windows?
HB_ULONG ulTime =
Revision: 13489
http://harbour-project.svn.sourceforge.net/harbour-project/?rev=13489view=rev
Author: druzus
Date: 2010-01-06 16:16:22 + (Wed, 06 Jan 2010)
Log Message:
---
2010-01-06 17:15 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)
*
possible now create directories automatically if not there on the remote?
2010/1/6 dru...@users.sourceforge.net:
Revision: 13489
http://harbour-project.svn.sourceforge.net/harbour-project/?rev=13489view=rev
Author: druzus
Date: 2010-01-06 16:16:22 + (Wed, 06 Jan 2010)
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010, Massimo Belgrano wrote:
Hi,
possible now create directories automatically if not there on the remote?
Massimo, what is not clear in my ChangeLog entry?
I even updated NETIO server example and added to ChangeLog
demonstration code. Please don't be so fast and think a
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 5:16 PM, dru...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
* harbour/contrib/hbnetio/netio.h
* harbour/contrib/hbnetio/netiocli.c
* harbour/contrib/hbnetio/netiosrv.c
+ implemented RPC in HBNETIO protocol
...
Have a fun with a new toy. I hope that many Harbour user will
Great feature. Thanks a lot for it.
Too smoothen the security edge of this feature,
maybe it would be nice to allow to limit the set
of functions made available through RPC on the
server side. This way programmer could have total
control over this aspect without worrying about
function being
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010, Lorenzo Fiorini wrote:
It's only important that the functions you want to execute are
linked with server code or where loaded dynamically. you can
even make sth like:
netio_procexec( HB_HRBLOAD, hb_memoread( mycode.hrb ) )
result := netio_funcexec( MYFUNC1, param1,
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010, Szak�ts Viktor wrote:
Too smoothen the security edge of this feature,
maybe it would be nice to allow to limit the set
of functions made available through RPC on the
server side. This way programmer could have total
control over this aspect without worrying about
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010, Szak�ts Viktor wrote:
Too smoothen the security edge of this feature,
maybe it would be nice to allow to limit the set
of functions made available through RPC on the
server side. This way programmer could have total
control over this aspect without worrying about
Hi,
All above functions use default connection set by NETIO_CONNECT()
for RPCs but it's also possible to specify server address and port
in cProcName/cFuncName just like in cFileName parameter in RDD
functions, i.e.:
NETIO_PROCEXISTS( 192.168.0.1:10005:MYFUNC )
Hi,
Przemysław Czerpak wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010, Lorenzo Fiorini wrote:
It's only important that the functions you want to execute are
linked with server code or where loaded dynamically. you can
even make sth like:
netio_procexec( HB_HRBLOAD, hb_memoread( mycode.hrb ) )
BTW a small
Hi,
Mindaugas Kavaliauskas wrote:
homework.prg (test module):
PROC main()
? netio_connect()
? NETIO_PROCEXISTS(HB_HRBLOAD)
? NETIO_PROCEXISTS(HELLO)
? NETIO_PROCEXECW(HB_HRBLOAD, HB_MEMOREAD(homework2.prg))
? NETIO_PROCEXISTS(HELLO)
? NETIO_FUNCEXEC(HELLO)
RETURN
Unfortunately test
Hello Przemek
Log Message:
---
2010-01-06 17:15 UTC+0100 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)
* harbour/src/rtl/hbznet.c
! do not use DEF_MEM_LEVEL to avoid potential problems when zutil.h
is not available
* harbour/contrib/hbnetio/netio.h
*
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010, Mindaugas Kavaliauskas wrote:
Hi,
Mindaugas Kavaliauskas wrote:
homework.prg (test module):
PROC main()
? netio_connect()
? NETIO_PROCEXISTS(HB_HRBLOAD)
? NETIO_PROCEXISTS(HELLO)
? NETIO_PROCEXECW(HB_HRBLOAD, HB_MEMOREAD(homework2.prg))
?
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010, Mindaugas Kavaliauskas wrote:
Hi,
PROC main()
? netio_connect()
? NETIO_PROCEXISTS(STR)
RETURN
prints:
.T.
.T.
but
PROC main()
? NETIO_PROCEXISTS(127.0.0.1:2941:STR)
RETURN
prints:
.F.
What I'm missing?
It's working for me in my Linux box so I can only
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010, Pritpal Bedi wrote:
Hi,
I can sense this commit is the basis for NETRDD or NETGT of future.
Am I right ?
It can be useful for both but in fact it's side effect of some other
job not directly related to Harbour.
Anyhow I plan to work on GTNET in the nearest future so above
Hi
Przemysław Czerpak wrote:
Anyhow I plan to work on GTNET in the nearest future so above code
should greatly help.
I could not hear a better with than above few words, for 2010.
Regards
Pritpal Bedi
--
View this message in context:
Very good news!
can we plan promote a 2.1 with GTnet and hbide is some month?
2010/1/7 Przemysław Czerpak dru...@acn.waw.pl:
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010, Pritpal Bedi wrote:
Hi,
I can sense this commit is the basis for NETRDD or NETGT of future.
Am I right ?
It can be useful for both but in
25 matches
Mail list logo
