Yes, it is for web browsers. The target is any and all with HTML only.
Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Francois PIETTE
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 12:34 AM
To: ICS support mailing
Subject: Re: [twsocket] HTTP...
> I have a serv
Hi!
DZ-Jay wrote:
> A way to create a multi-part response is to encapsulate
> it as a MIME 822 message. Here's some basic information on this:
>
> http://www.motobit.com/tips/detpg_multiple-files-one-request/
I stumbled over the following lines on that page:
| The situation is even worse if
> I have a server and I want to send a jpeg to the client upon request. This
> image is dynamic. I am using AnswerStream and that is all working great.
>
> Then I decided I also wanted some text to go before the image.
>
> I could not determine how to send text and an image with the same reply.
>
>
Thanks. I will look into it.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of DZ-Jay
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:15 PM
To: ICS support mailing
Subject: Re: [twsocket] HTTP...
DZ-Jay wrote:
> What you want to do is send a multi-part MIME payload in t
DZ-Jay wrote:
> What you want to do is send a multi-part MIME payload in the body of
> your HTTP response. You have to set the content-type to
> "multipart/form-data". For more information, check this page:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/forms.html#h-17.13.4.2
>
> dZ.
>
Ple
zayin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a server and I want to send a jpeg to the client upon request. This
> image is dynamic. I am using AnswerStream and that is all working great.
>
> Then I decided I also wanted some text to go before the image.
>
> I could not determine how to send text and an im
Hello,
I have a server and I want to send a jpeg to the client upon request. This
image is dynamic. I am using AnswerStream and that is all working great.
Then I decided I also wanted some text to go before the image.
I could not determine how to send text and an image with the same reply.
So
> My debug function to log the timestamps was the culprit. I should
> have just grabbed the time before, then the time after and done the
> math.
Using real time to calculate duration is very inefficient, it's much
better to use GetTickCount which is milliseconds running time since
Windows boot
> My debug function to log the timestamps was the culprit.
oke then all is fine :)
---
Rgds, Wilfried [TeamICS]
http://www.overbyte.be/eng/overbyte/teamics.html
http://www.mestdagh.biz
--
To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list
please goto http://lists.elists.org/cgi-bi
Wilfried,
ErmOops. etc.
My debug function to log the timestamps was the culprit. I should have just
grabbed the time before, then the time after and done the math. What I actually
did was review my log file with timestamps in it. This was the cause of the
delay.
Using the time before and
Hello Andy,
> Dan was correct. The time I noted was for Send to return, not for the data to
> actually be sent.
Sorry then I have given you a wrong answer.
> Given the 300ms for Send to return, is this to be expected?
No it should return immediatly, the function is async. Are you
absolutely sur
Wilfried,
Dan was correct. The time I noted was for Send to return, not for the data to
actually be sent.
Given the 300ms for Send to return, is this to be expected?
If it is, then I will look to optimise elsewhere. But it just seems likely that
something is a miss - wrong option setting maybe
12 matches
Mail list logo
