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 entire payload was received. > > I think the advantage to this method is that I do not have to worry about > file size, as any file can be transferred using this method, whereas > otherwise a file can theoretically be large enough to overwhelm the sender > or receiver.
I hope Mark Waddinghham will correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I believe the looped chunking you're scripting is effectively what happens automatically when you write the whole data. I would be reluctant to rely on a handful of tests alone, and it never hurts to wear both belt and suspenders. I'm assuming HTTP 1.1 added a requirement for specifying payload length for good reason. If I understand the protocol well enough, you're already sending metadata (for the file name), yes? What's a few more bytes in that header to add payload size? This excercise raises a question: rather than invent another protocol, why not use HTTP? Saves dev time, eliminates the need to write and maintain documentation for a custom protocol, leverages existing robust tooling, allows for integration with other packages as customer needs evolve, and stakeholders often get to buy-in faster where open standards are employed. -- Richard Gaskin FourthWorld.com _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
