On 02/03/2012, at 5:41 AM, "Bernard Devlin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd go with Andre on this, only try some voodoo too :) > > 3. try increasing the timeout interval. I have some code that fires > off hundreds of "load urls" sequentially. But this is done by using > "send in time" for the "load" (and using callbacks to handle the > returned data). I figured that smarter people than me have worked on > the messaging machinery inside the engine, so I'd better rely on their > work. I have the socketTimeoutInterval set to 25000. Since these are > asynchronous calls (i.e. the user is unaware they are going on), the > socketTimeoutInterval can be high without the user knowing anything. Load is what I'd like to do, but all my requests are POSTs :( > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Andre Garzia <[email protected]> wrote: >> Folks, >> >> This is from the "wild crazy and potentially stupid ideas" department: >> >> 1 - have you tried lowering the timeout interval, this way, your calls >> should fail faster and you would be able to recover more easily. Better >> retry until it work than to be locked into a timeout loop. >> >> 2 - Are you executing these calls in a repeat loop? Are all calls inside a >> single handler such as: > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > [email protected] > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
