When I encounter customer with such restrictions, I use my mobile hotspot for
internet. I service a great many customers onsite in the LA area, and it’s been
my experience that very few of them block traffic originating from within their
own network. Health agencies and contractors are of course
Bob Sneidar wrote:
> Sockets are by nature a 2 way communication. After I write to a socket
> I can read from that socket and get back whatever the receiver returns.
> In fact the whole premise of what I am doing depends on it.
Yes, the socket connection is birectional, but establishing that conn
Sockets are by nature a 2 way communication. After I write to a socket I can
read from that socket and get back whatever the receiver returns. In fact the
whole premise of what I am foing depends on it.
Bob S
On Feb 25, 2025, at 9:10 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode
wrote:
This excercise
I was having issues sending the encrypted data raw, but that may actually have
been the issue I am now encountering, with the timing. I’ll try without
base64encoding.
Bob S
On Feb 25, 2025, at 5:07 PM, Alex Tweedly via use-livecode
wrote:
Because I am encrypting the file data before sending
Alex Tweedly wrote:
> Richard wrote:
>> This excercise raises a question: rather than invent another protocol,
>> why not use HTTP?
>
>
> Usually, because HTTP is quite decidedly a client-server protocol.
> If you have a peer-peer protocol need, then you have to bend HTTP
> out of shape :-)
Soc
On 25/02/2025 19:49, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode wrote:
Because I developed my own encryption API which uses AES256 but has a couple
tricks. SSL certs will not suffice, and the whole point to having my own
encryption technique is so that I can avoid SSL certs and the process of
registering
I played around with this last night, and determined that the length does not
have to be sent, the receiving process can simply keep reading for n
characters, appending the data to a low level file in a repeat loop until the
it variable is empty. I tried this and the entire payload was received.
Because I developed my own encryption API which uses AES256 but has a couple
tricks. SSL certs will not suffice, and the whole point to having my own
encryption technique is so that I can avoid SSL certs and the process of
registering them and installing them.
Because I am encrypting the file
Bob Sneidar wrote:
> I played around with this last night, and determined that the length does
> not have to be sent, the receiving process can simply keep reading for n
> characters, appending the data to a low level file in a repeat loop until
> the it variable is empty. I tried this and the ent
On 25/02/2025 00:35, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode wrote:
Okay I verified in my actual code. This is problematic if I don’t know how much
data is actually going to be sent. I ended up with roughly 138,000 bytes before
it choked. I supposed I could start with 128k chunks then dial it down if it’
Okay I verified in my actual code. This is problematic if I don’t know how much
data is actually going to be sent. I ended up with roughly 138,000 bytes before
it choked. I supposed I could start with 128k chunks then dial it down if it’s
too much. I wish I know what the limiting factors are bec
On 2025-02-21 16:25, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode wrote:
Yes and I replied to the ticket. The base64encoded data received is the
same as that which was sent, so I do not think data length is the
issue. Also if I send the file data just by itself without putting it
into an array, the file arrive
Yes and I replied to the ticket. The base64encoded data received is the same as
that which was sent, so I do not think data length is the issue. Also if I send
the file data just by itself without putting it into an array, the file arrives
at the server intact and can be base64Decoded and decryp
On 2025-02-20 18:21, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode wrote:
Bug #24655 submitted.
Looks like an incorrect use / invalid assumption about sockets to me ;)
I've replied to the bug report but it looks like you are assuming that
sending X bytes in one send command from the client can be read by one
Bug #24655 submitted.
Bob S
> On Feb 20, 2025, at 8:34 AM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
>
> Thanks Mark.
>
> Nice try but no cookie. I will file a bug report shortly. The error I am
> geting with arrayDecode is:
>
> 672,49,1
> 465,49,1
>
> I am sure that is a reference to the code in the library t
Thanks Mark.
Nice try but no cookie. I will file a bug report shortly. The error I am geting
with arrayDecode is:
672,49,1
465,49,1
I am sure that is a reference to the code in the library that encodes and
decodes arrays. I haven’t gotten to the decryption bit yet.
Bob S aka The Bug Man :-)
Thanks Mark I will try that. Good timing too as I was just about to refactor
the whole library. :-)
Bob S
> On Feb 19, 2025, at 8:45 PM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> On 2025-02-18 23:18, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode wrote:
>> The structure looks like the following:
>> I reve
On 2025-02-18 23:18, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode wrote:
The structure looks like the following:
I reverse the process on the receiving side. It seems to work if I send
non-binary data in the [“data”] key but if the data is binary, it
fails. I do not think arrayEncode / decode likes to work wi
> On 20 Feb 2025, at 12:17 PM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> I have narrowed down the issue to the fact that the array I am trying to
> arrayDecode has a lot of data in the [n] [“data”] key. Without that data, the
> array decodes file. With it I get an error. I even tried base64e
I have narrowed down the issue to the fact that the array I am trying to
arrayDecode has a lot of data in the [n] [“data”] key. Without that data, the
array decodes file. With it I get an error. I even tried base64encoding it
first before putting it in the array key, but that does not seem to he
Hi Monte. I did try your versioning solution but I am still having issues on
the receiving end. Given your understanding of what I am trying to do here, how
would you “package” the data so that it can be sent over the wire (socket
communications)? The idea is to send an array with different key
Ahah!
Okay I can do that, but I also determined that if I base64encode the encrypted
data before putting it into the [n] [“data”] key then reverse on the other end,
it works as well. Same idea, different technique.
Bob S
> On Feb 18, 2025, at 3:29 PM, Monte Goulding via use-livecode
> wro
Ah ok so just checked the docs on the array encode version added in LC 7 and
found:
```
If present, and >= "7.0" then the array is encoded in such a way as to preserve
unicode in keys and values, as well as NUL chars in keys and values
```
So try `arrayEncode(array, “7.0")`
> On 19 Feb 2025, at
The structure looks like the following:
Sly File Agent API
Structure of payload sent
[0]
[profile]
[n]
[data]
[datemodified]
[extpath]
[filecategory]
[fileid]
[filename]
[filepath]
[operation
> On 19 Feb 2025, at 9:39 AM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> but one key is the binary file data of a file that has been encrypted using
> LC’s built in library.
Are you using this as the key or element value? I think keys are always treated
as text. It has been quite one time
Thanks Monte.
Here is what I am doing:
I have a numbered array. Element 0 has a key called operation which simply has
a string with one of several possible values.
Then I have elements 1 to n with a number of different elements, most are
simple strings, but one key is the binary file data o
Okay I don’t think I am having an issue with arrayEncode. I think I am having
an issue where arrayEncoding with MacOS is failing to arrayDecode in Windows
and vis versa.
Bob S
> On Feb 18, 2025, at 1:28 PM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Hi all.
>
> I think I have uncovered an
> On 19 Feb 2025, at 9:09 AM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Okay I don’t think I am having an issue with arrayEncode. I think I am having
> an issue where arrayEncoding with MacOS is failing to arrayDecode in Windows
> and vis versa.
The result of arrayEncode is a binary string
Hi Bob
I strongly suspect a mis-diagnosis here. If you have your paths in an array
then do `put arrayDecode(arrayEncode(myArray)) into myArray` do you still see a
problem? If you do please report a bug as there is a lot of code that relies on
arrayEncode/decode round tripping with no issues.
C
Hi all.
I think I have uncovered an issue with encoding / decoding arrays where some
array elements are file paths. I’m thinking that the forweard slashes are
interfering with the decoding process. I think this because the arrayEncoded
data has the actual paths still intact in the data stream.
30 matches
Mail list logo
