Thanks - I'll give that a go. Sent from my iPhone
On 01/03/2012, at 9:14 AM, "Bjoernke von Gierke" <b...@mac.com> wrote: > Preferences -> Composing -> Increase quote level > > (just below "Quote the text of the original message") > > > On 29.02.2012, at 23:01, Terry Judd wrote: > >> You can probably blame Apple mail for that. >> >> Terry... >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 01/03/2012, at 8:46 AM, "Bob Sneidar" <b...@twft.com> wrote: >> >>> Not to be too critical, but it is nearly impossible for me to read this as >>> a thread when prior conversations are not "quoted" in some way to >>> distinguish them from the actual post. My mind gives up trying. >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> On Feb 29, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Terry Judd wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 01/03/2012, at 12:19 AM, Dave Cragg wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29 Feb 2012, at 09:49, Terry Judd wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi guys - we have a reasonably complex Livecode app that makes lots of >>>> server requests - typically initiated by posting data to php routines on a >>>> secure (https) server. Generally things work well but occasionally things >>>> go awry and we start seeing slowdowns and odd errors (including the >>>> dreaded 'previous request not completed'), particularly if a number of >>>> requests are made in relatively quick succession. >>>> >>>> Anyway, I was wondering whether there was any advantage to closing the >>>> open socket as soon as any data is returned rather than waiting for it >>>> close itself (there is a timeout interval of 5 seconds), thereby forcing >>>> any new request to open a new socket rather than using an 'old' open one? >>>> >>>> If all the requests are to http urls, you could try adding a "Connection: >>>> close" header. >>>> >>>> set the httpHeaders to "Connection: close" >>>> >>>> This may not solve all the problems you are seeing, but it should cause >>>> the remote server to close the connection after replying and include a >>>> suitable header in its response. This will cause libUrl to close the >>>> socket and not attempt to use an already open one for subsequent requests. >>>> I've seen this solve problems where Livecode doesn't immediately recognize >>>> that a socket has been closed remotely and attempts to re-use it, >>>> resulting in an error. >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> Thanks Dave, that sounds promising. I'll give it a go. >>>> >>>> Terry... >>>> >>>> Dr Terry Judd >>>> Senior Lecturer in Medical Education >>>> Medical Eduction Unit >>>> Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences >>>> The University of Melbourne >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
