David McGehee wrote:    
> > Microsoft Server2003 jbase 4.1 environment.  We need a 
> > different method of making http: connections from 
> > jBase.  We are currently using a CALLC custom-written 
> > interface for which we no longer have the code.

From: Jim Idle
> The easiest way is to EXECUTE an external program 
> (curl is good: http://curl.haxx.se/download.html  and 
> works on WIndows), redirect the output to a file, then 
> read in the file.
> 
> There is also a C library version of it and if it has 
> string input and output then you can make a DEFC for 
> it (or maybe get CALLC to work) and just call it like 
> your old custom code. It would be trivial to create a 
> CALLC wrapper for it though.


This is both a suggestion as well as an inquiry:

I've used cURL for various projects.  It's well supported, very
popular, and if you don't mind the execute/capture method, it a
good option.  The library "libcurl" that Jim mentions can be
tough to use though there are bindings for many languages - so
you can write your client code in C, PHP, or Java for example,
and still make use of cURL if you like the way it works.  This
same library gets you HTTP plus FTP and other protocols.

I'm not sure of the demographics of jBASE developers but most
MVBASIC developers that I know have C just one step up from
assembler, both at the very bottom of the list of tools that
they're inclined to use.  So CALLC is an effective option that
may be out of reach for most.

There are many examples of Java HTTP clients around, so CALLJ may
be higher on the list of preferable options.

There is also CALLDOTNET, since David is on Windows.  It's
relatively easy to write a .NET HTTP client, including for web
services, and again, this is well documented with lots of
examples on the 'net.  [ I can do this as a service and provide
the source, as long as you promise not to lose it. :)  ]

According to the BASIC manual, .NET code will bind the first time
it's executed but there is only an initialization performance
penalty, and subsequent operations should be as fast as the
transfer itself.  I don't know if this true for CALLJ.  Anyone?

Java has an advantage in that you can use almost the same code on
any OS, but from what I've read it seems a bit tougher to
implement.

And coming back to ease of development, with .NET you have your
choice of over 30 languages, though VB.NET and C# are most
preferred by BASIC developers.

So given all of that, are there any reasons not to use CALLDOTNET
or CALLJ?  Technical preferences?  (Not philosophical,
technical...)

Tony Gravagno
Nebula Research and Development
TG@ remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com
Nebula R&D sells mv.NET and other Pick/MultiValue products
worldwide, and provides related development and training services


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Please read the posting guidelines at: 
http://groups.google.com/group/jBASE/web/Posting%20Guidelines

IMPORTANT: Type T24: at the start of the subject line for questions specific to 
Globus/T24

To post, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jBASE?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to