Using MS Visual Studio 2008 C++ for Windows 32 (XP brand), I try to construct a POP3 client managed from a modeless dialog box.
Te first step is create a persistent object -say pop3- with all that Boost.asio stuff to do asynchronous connections, in the WM_INITDIALOG message of the dialog-box-procedure. Some like:
case WM_INITDIALOG:
return (iniPop3Dlg (hDlg, lParam));
Here we assume that iniPop3Dlg() create the pop3 heap object -say pointed out by pop3p-. Then connect with the remote server, and a session is initiated with the client’s id and password (USER and PASS commands). Here we assume that the server is in TRANSACTION state.
Then, in response to some user input, the dialog-box-procedure, call the appropriate function. Say:
case IDS_TOTAL: // get how many emails in the server
total (pop3p);
return FALSE;
case IDS_DETAIL: // get date, sender and subject for each email in the server
detail (pop3p);
return FALSE;
Note that total() uses the POP3’s STAT command to get how many emails in the server, while detail() uses two commands consecutively; first STAT to get the total and then a loop with the GET command to retrieve the content of each message.
As an aside: detail() and total() share the same subroutines -the STAT handle routine-, and when finished, both leaves the session as-is. That is, without closing the connection; the socket remains opened an the server in TRANSACTION state.
When any option is selected by the first time, the things run as expected, obtaining the desired results. But when making the second chance, the connection hangs.
A closer inspection show that the first time that the statement
socket_.get_io_service().run();
Is used, never ends.
Note that all asynchronous write and read routines uses the same io_service, and each routine uses socket_.get_io_service().reset() prior to any run()
Not also that all R/W operations also uses the same timer, who is reseted to zero wait after each operation is completed:
dTimer_.expires_from_now (boost::posix_time::seconds(0));
I suspect that the problem is in the io_service or in the timer, and the fact that subsequent executions occurs in a different load of the routine.
As a first approach to my problem, I hope that someone would bring some light in it, prior to a more detailed exposition of the -very few and simple- routines involved.
Have you looked at the asio examples and studied them? There are several asynchronous examples that should help you understand the basic control flow. Pay particular importance to the main event loop started by invoking io_service::run, it's important to understand control is not expected to return to the caller until the io_service has no more remaining work to do.
Related
I am making an addon in Firefox, so I have a ChromeWorker - which is a privileged WebWorker. This is just a thread other then the mainthread.
In here I have no code but this (modified to make it look like not js-ctypes [which is the language for addons])
On startup I run this code, conn is a global variable:
conn = xcb_connect(null, null);
Then I run this in a 200ms interval:
evt = xcb_poll_for_event(conn);
console.log('evt:', evt);
if (!evt.isNull()) {
console.log('good got an event!!');
ostypes.API('free')(evt);
}
However evt is always null, I am never getting any events. My goal is to get all events on the system.
Anyone know what can cause something so simple to not work?
I have tried
xcb_change_window_attributes (conn, screens.data->root, XCB_CW_EVENT_MASK, values);
But this didn't fix it :(
The only way I can get it to work is by doing xcb_create_window xcb_map_window but then I get ONLY the events that happen in this created window.
You don't just magically get all events by opening a connection. There's only very few messages any client will receive, such as client messages, most others will only be sent to a client if it explicitly registered itself to receive them.
And yes, that means you have to register them on each and every window, which involves both crawling the tree and listening for windows being created, mapped, unmapped and destroyed and registering on them as well.
However, I would reconsider whether
My goal is to get all events on the system.
isn't an A-B problem. Why do you "need" all events? What do you actually want to do?
Suppose I have one connection c and many session objects s1, s2 .. sn, each working in different threads t1, t2 ... tn.
c
|
-------------------------------------------------
| | | |
(t1,s1) (t2,s2) (t3,s3) ...... (tn,sn)
Now suppose one of the thread t3 wants to send a message to a particular queue q3 and then listen to the reply asynchronously. So it does the following:
1: c.stop();
2: auto producer = s3.createProducer(s3.createQueue(q3));
3: auto text = s3.createTextMessage(message);
4: auto replyQueue = s3.createTemporaryQueue();
5: text.setJMSReplyTo(replyQueue);
6: producer.send(text);
7: auto consumer = s3.createConsumer(replyQueue);
8: consumer.setMessageListener(myListener);
9: c.start();
The reason why I called c.stop() in the beginning and then c.start() in the end, because I'm not sure if any of the other threads has called start on the connection (making all the sessions asynchronous — is that right?) and as per the documentation:
"If synchronous calls, such as creation of a consumer or producer, must be made on an asynchronous session, the Connection.Stop must be called. A session can be resumed by calling the Connection.Start method to start delivery of messages."
So calling stop in the beginning of the steps and then start in the end seems reasonable and thus the code seems correct (at least to me). However, when I thought about it more, I think the code is buggy, as it doesn't make sure no other threads call start before t3 finishes all the steps.
So my questions are:
Do I need to use mutex to ensure it? Or the XMS handles it automatically (which means my reasoning is wrong)?
How to design my application so that I dont have to call stop and start everytime I want to send a messages and listen reply asynchronously?
As per the quoted text above, I cannot call createProducer() and createConsumer() if the connection is in asynchronous mode. What are other methods I cannot call? The documentation doesn't categorise the methods in this way:
Also, the documentation doesn't say clearly what makes a session asynchronous. It says this:
"A session is not made asynchronous by assigning a message listener to a consumer. A session becomes asynchronous only when the Connection.Start method is called."
I see two problems here:
Calling c.start() makes all sessions asynchronous, not just one.
If I call c.start() but doesn't assign any message listener to a consumer, are the session(s) still asynchronous?
It seems I've lots of questions, so it'd be great if anyone could provide me with links to the parts or sections of the documentation which explains XMS objects with such minute details.
This says,
"According to the specification, calling stop(), close() on a Connection, setMessageListener() on a Session etc. must wait till all message processing finishes, that is till all onMessage() calls which have already been entered exit. So if anyone attempts to do that operation inside onMessage() there will be a deadlock by design."
But I'm not sure if that information is authentic, as I didn't find this info on IBM documentation.
I prefer the KIS rule. Why don't you use 1 connection per thread? Hence, the code would not have to worry about conflicts between threads.
I implemented a small client server application in Ruby and I have the following problem: The server starts a new client session in a new thread for each connecting client, but it should be possible to shutdown the server and stop all the client sessions in a 'polite' way from outside without just killing the thread while I don't know which state it is in.
So I decided that the client session object gets a `stop' flag which can be set from outside and is checked before each action. The problem is that it should not wait for the client, if it is just waiting for a request. I have the following temporary solution:
def read_client
loop do
begin
timeout(1) { return #client.gets }
rescue Timeout::Error
if #stop
stop # Notifies the client and closes the connection
return nil
end
end
end
end
But that sucks, looks terrible and intuitively, this should be such a normal thing that there has to be a `normal' solution to it. I don't even know if it is safe or if it could happen that the gets operation reads part of the client request, but not all of it.
Another side question is, if setting/getting a boolean flag is an atomic operation in Ruby (or if I need an additional Mutex for the flag).
Thread-per-client approach is usually a disaster for server design. Also blocking I/O is difficult to interrupt without OS-specific tricks. Check out non-blocking sockets, see for example, answers to this question.
I am writing a cross-platform library which, among other things, provides a socket interface, and while running my unit-test suite, I noticed something strange with regard to timeouts set via setsockopt(): On Windows, a blocking recv() call seems to consistently return about half a second (500 ms) later than specified via the SO_RCVTIMEO option.
Is there any explanation for this in the docs I missed? Searching the web, I was only able to find a single other reference to the problem – could somebody who owns »Windows Sockets
Network Programming« by Bob Quinn and Dave Shute look up page 466 for me? Unfortunately, I can only run my test Windows Server 2008 R2 right now, does the same strange behavior exist on other Windows versions as well?
From Networking Programming for Microsoft Windows by Jones and Ohlund:
SO_RCVTIMEO optval
Type: int
Get/Set: Both
Winsock Version: 1+
Description : Gets or sets the timeout value (in milliseconds)
associated with receiving data on the
socket
The SO_RCVTIMEO option sets the
receive timeout value on a blocking
socket. The timeout value is an
integer in milliseconds that indicates
how long a Winsock receive function
should block when attempting to
receive data. If you need to use the
SO_RCVTIMEO option and you use the
WSASocket function to create the
socket, you must specify
WSA_FLAG_OVERLAPPED as part of
WSASocket's dwFlags parameter.
Subsequent calls to any Winsock
receive function (such as recv,
recvfrom, WSARecv, or WSARecvFrom)
block only for the amount of time
specified. If no data arrives within
that time, the call fails with the
error 10060 (WSAETIMEDOUT). If the
receiver operation does time out the
socket is in an indeterminate state
and should not be used.
For performance reasons, this option
was disabled in Windows CE 2.1. If you
attempt to set this option, it is
silently ignored and no failure
returns. Previous versions of Windows
CE do implement this option.
I'd think the crucial information in this is:
If you need to use the SO_RCVTIMEO option and you use the WSASocket
function to create the socket, you
must specify WSA_FLAG_OVERLAPPED as
part of WSASocket's dwFlags parameter
I hope this is still useful :)
I am having the same problem. Going to use
patchedTimeout = max ( unpatchedTimepit - 500, 1 )
Tested this with the unpatchedTimepit == 850
your problem is not in rcv function timeout!
if your application have a while loop to check and receive just put an if statement to check the receive buffer last index for '\0' char to check is the receiving string is ended or not.
typically if rcv function is still receiving return value is the size of received data. size can be used as last index of buffer array.
do{
result = rcv(s,buf,len,0);
if(buf[result] == '\0'){
break;
}
}
while(result > 0);
I'm having some trouble with a Qt application; specifically with the QNetworkAccessManager class. I'm attempting to perform a simple HTTP upload of a binary file using the post() method of the QNetworkAccessManager. The documentation states that I can give a pointer to a QIODevice to post(), and that the class will transmit the data found in the QIODevice. This suggests to me that I ought to be able to give post() a pointer to a QFile. For example:
QFile compressedFile("temp");
compressedFile.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly);
netManager.post(QNetworkRequest(QUrl("http://mywebsite.com/upload") ), &compressedFile);
What seems to happen on the Windows system where I'm developing this is that my Qt application pushes the data from the QFile, but then doesn't complete the request; it seems to be sitting there waiting for more data to show up from the file. The post request isn't "closed" until I manually kill the application, at which point the whole file shows up at my server end.
From some debugging and research, I think this is happening because the read() operation of QFile doesn't return -1 when you reach the end of the file. I think that QNetworkAccessManager is trying to read from the QIODevice until it gets a -1 from read(), at which point it assumes there is no more data and closes the request. If it keeps getting a return code of zero from read(), QNetworkAccessManager assumes that there might be more data coming, and so it keeps waiting for that hypothetical data.
I've confirmed with some test code that the read() operation of QFile just returns zero after you've read to the end of the file. This seems to be incompatible with the way that the post() method of QNetworkAccessManager expects a QIODevice to behave. My questions are:
Is this some sort of limitation with the way that QFile works under Windows?
Is there some other way I should be using either QFile or QNetworkAccessManager to push a file via post()?
Is this not going to work at all, and will I have to find some other way to upload my file?
Any suggestions or hints would be appreciated.
Update: It turns out that I had two different problems: one on the client side and one on the server side. On the client side, I had to ensure that my QFile object stayed around for the duration of the network transaction. The post() method of QNetworkAccessManager returns immediately but isn't actually finished immediately. You need to attach a slot to the finished() signal of QNetworkAccessManager to determine when the POST is actually finished. In my case it was easy enough to keep the QFile around more or less permanently, but I also attached a slot to the finished() signal in order to check for error responses from the server.
I attached the signal to the slot like this:
connect(&netManager, SIGNAL(finished(QNetworkReply*) ), this, SLOT(postFinished(QNetworkReply*) ) );
When it was time to send my file, I wrote the post code like this (note that compressedFile is a member of my class and so does not go out of scope after this code):
compressedFile.open(QIODevice::ReadOnly);
netManager.post(QNetworkRequest(QUrl(httpDestination.getCString() ) ), &compressedFile);
The finished(QNetworkReply*) signal from QNetworkAccessManager triggers my postFinished(QNetworkReply*) method. When this happens, it's safe for me to close compressedFile and to delete the data file represented by compressedFile. For debugging purposes I also added a few printf() statements to confirm that the transaction is complete:
void CL_QtLogCompressor::postFinished(QNetworkReply* reply)
{
QByteArray response = reply->readAll();
printf("response: %s\n", response.data() );
printf("reply error %d\n", reply->error() );
reply->deleteLater();
compressedFile.close();
compressedFile.remove();
}
Since compressedFile isn't closed immediately and doesn't go out of scope, the QNetworkAccessManager is able to take as much time as it likes to transmit my file. Eventually the transaction is complete and my postFinished() method gets called.
My other problem (which also contributed to the behavior I was seeing where the transaction never completed) was that the Python code for my web server wasn't fielding the POST correctly, but that's outside the scope of my original Qt question.
You're creating compressedFile on the stack, and passing a pointer to it to your QNetworkRequest (and ultimately your QNetworkAccessManager). As soon as you leave the method you're in, compressedFile is going out of scope. I'm surprised it's not crashing on you, though the behavior is undefined.
You need to create the QFile on the heap:
QFile *compressedFile = new QFile("temp");
You will of course need to keep track of it and then delete it once the post has completed, or set it as the child of the QNetworkReply so that it it gets destroyed when the reply gets destroyed later:
QFile *compressedFile = new QFile("temp");
compressedFile->open(QIODevice::ReadOnly);
QNetworkReply *reply = netManager.post(QNetworkRequest(QUrl("http://mywebsite.com/upload") ), compressedFile);
compressedFile->setParent(reply);
You can also schedule automatic deletion of a heap-allocated file using signals/slots
QFile* compressedFile = new QFile(...);
QNetworkReply* reply = Manager.post(...);
// This is where the tricks is
connect(reply, SIGNAL(finished()), reply, SLOT(deleteLater());
connect(reply, SIGNAL(destroyed()), compressedFile, SLOT(deleteLater());
IMHO, it is much more localized and encapsulated than having to keep around your file in the outer class.
Note that you must remove the first connect() if you have your postFinished(QNetworkReply*) slot, in which you must then not forget to call reply->deleteLater() inside it for the above to work.