Hi,
Il 31/07/2009 3.16, Przemyslaw Czerpak ha scritto:
Such version also catch QUIT event's and it's safe for recursive calls.
perfect thank you, I will update it
Best Regards,
Francesco
___
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Francesco Saverio Giudice wrote:
Hi,
> ok, thank you.
Yet another advice.
Add to Handler_HrbScript() just after:
CATCH oError
this line:
hb_mutexUnlock( s_hmtxHRB )
otherwise error in one .hrb script blocks all other threads so they
cannot execute any .hrb script.
on 31/07/2009 2.14 Przemyslaw Czerpak wrote:
One fix to the code I've sent. I forgot to add header terminator striped
by hb_InetRecvEndBlock(). Please change:
/* receive query */
#ifdef USE_HB_INET
cRequest := hb_InetRecvEndBlock( hSocket, CR_LF + CR_LF, @nLen )
#else
to:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Francesco Saverio Giudice wrote:
Hi,
>> In above code you do not check for additional CONTENT-LENGTH data.
> [I have already seen your following message)
> The non inet code was the original I didn't use and I forgot to change. But
> I will check better your code and I will
Hi,
on 31/07/2009 1.41 Przemyslaw Czerpak wrote:
In above code you do not check for additional CONTENT-LENGTH data.
[I have already seen your following message)
The non inet code was the original I didn't use and I forgot to change.
But I will check better your code and I will change httpsrv.
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Francesco Saverio Giudice wrote:
Hi,
> on 30/07/2009 20.29 Przemyslaw Czerpak wrote:
>> BTW why did you use different stop condtions in current readRequest()
>> code instead of exact replication of above socket_*() code, i.e:
>> cRequest := ""
>> nLen := 1
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Przemyslaw Czerpak wrote:
Hi,
> BTW why did you use different stop condtions in current readRequest()
> code instead of exact replication of above socket_*() code, i.e:
>
> cRequest := ""
> nLen := 1
> cBuf := Space( 4096 )
> DO WHILE AT(
Hi,
on 30/07/2009 20.29 Przemyslaw Czerpak wrote:
BTW why did you use different stop condtions in current readRequest()
code instead of exact replication of above socket_*() code, i.e:
cRequest := ""
nLen := 1
cBuf := Space( 4096 )
DO WHILE AT( CR_LF + CR_LF,
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Francesco Saverio Giudice wrote:
Hi,
> it's very strange because I did everytime a clean rebuild and I did also
> this morning before I wrote the mail. Now I did a new one and the result is
> correct (apart from few errors in my prgs I have corrected, paths etc that
> I wi
Hi,
Il 30/07/2009 16.54, Przemyslaw Czerpak ha scritto:
Above suggests for me that for some reasons you may not use
cleanly compiled Harbour code.
it's very strange because I did everytime a clean rebuild and I did also
this morning before I wrote the mail. Now I did a new one and the result
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Szak�ts Viktor wrote:
>> The above behavior describes problem with nonblocking socket so it's
>> expected for Harbour versions before:
>> 2009-07-29 05:19 UTC+0200 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)
>> With today CVS it should work without any problems.
>> Are you su
Il 30/07/2009 14.32, Przemyslaw Czerpak ha scritto:
Francesco please make quick test with Harbour code after:
2009-07-29 05:19 UTC+0200 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/
priv.onet.pl)
or better simply take today CVS.
I did this morning before writing email and the behavior is that I
described,
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Francesco Saverio Giudice wrote:
Hi,
> Il 30/07/2009 14.32, Przemyslaw Czerpak ha scritto:
>> Francesco please make quick test with Harbour code after:
>>2009-07-29 05:19 UTC+0200 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)
>> or better simply take today CVS.
> I did this
Hi Przemek,
Il 30/07/2009 14.32, Przemyslaw Czerpak ha scritto:
Francesco please make quick test with Harbour code after:
2009-07-29 05:19 UTC+0200 Przemyslaw Czerpak (druzus/at/priv.onet.pl)
or better simply take today CVS.
I did this morning before writing email and the behavior is that I
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Francesco Saverio Giudice wrote:
Hi,
> Previously of last Przemek's hb_socket and of last additions and directory
> move, inet version works well (apart from inet internal errors discussed in
> last days that could occurs).
> Now I would check:
> - to fix errors in hrb modu
I didn't remove it, and don't intend to do so until we
have the new high-level which is being used here too.
I also some differences between the two branches, but didn't
investigate.
Brgds,
Viktor
On 2009.07.30., at 0:37, Francesco Saverio Giudice wrote:
Hi Viktor,
Il 30/07/2009 12.01, vszak
Hi Viktor,
Il 30/07/2009 12.01, vszak...@users.sourceforge.net ha scritto:
* examples/httpsrv/uhttpd.prg
* examples/httpsrv/uhttpd.hbp
* examples/httpsrv/readme.txt
% Given less focus on the socket selection issue. Now the only
difference is .prg level API and local API is fully
Revision: 11937
http://harbour-project.svn.sourceforge.net/harbour-project/?rev=11937&view=rev
Author: vszakats
Date: 2009-07-30 10:01:06 + (Thu, 30 Jul 2009)
Log Message:
---
2009-07-30 12:00 UTC+0200 Viktor Szakats (harbour.01 syenar.hu)
* contrib/hbwin/Makefile
18 matches
Mail list logo
