post vs put vs ?sockets? for http
Title: post vs put vs ?sockets? for http I have a problem that I haven't been able to solve, and I thought--again, since I've posted a brief version of a part of this issue before--that perhaps someone on the list might be able to help. And sorry I had to make it so long-winded Problem: I have a dual server configuration where a dedicated slave server (500 Mhz G4 Mac) is giving database services by being directly connected to a database-application/internet server (NT dual 700 Mhz Dell) listening for WAN/http calls for data. MC is a custom browser asking for db record data. While in a true WAN environment, approximately 5-10% of my MC-generated post calls never generate a return from the http server, even though the database records being called for are clearly found and delivered to the NT (as apparent in the db application's found records status when looking at the NT server directly). Netscape/IE _never_ fail to generate returns when we query the db through the web, which throws some suspicion on MC. Details are: I am using post commands similar to one provided below to communicate through lasso (CGI application from BlueWorld) with FileMaker Pro application/database located on the web/db servers. FileMaker Pro database is used as a back end for my MetaCard stacks on the client machines. I moved this configuration to a relatively quite LAN with very good bandwidth for benchwork evaluations and the failures still persist, only at about a .5-1% rate instead of the 5-10% rate. I am still evaluating setups and all that jazz on the NT to see if the NT is the problem, but still have to wonder whether MC is in any way at fault or can be used to generate a work-around solution. For example, if MC just didn't hang when the response doesn't come back in, I could check for returned results, if finding empty-- re-send the query and go on. OK. I did a little experimenting and it appears that instead of using the post command I may use a put command as well. This means that instead of post -database=Students.fp3-layout=FirstStep-response=Field:'gbRespOne'-recordI D=48-search to url http://##. ##. ##. #/FMP_MC/Action.lasso (of course a real IP nbr goes where ##'s are) I can simply use put url http://##. ##. ##. #/FMP_MC/action.lasso?-database=Students.fp3-layout=Firs tStep-response=Field:'gbRespOne'-recordID=48-search into fld report with the same result. Now, I haven't had the luxury yet of testing whether this improves on the percentage of unreturned calls, but the following issue comes up regardless: If I recall various sources of information correctly, Scott has suggested that MC is likely to lose the post command from the next version of MC in favor of socket-level coding. Scott -- is this correct? If so, is the put url also likely to go? Is there a difference in how they work underneath? But more importantly. because I only partly understand the mechanics of using sockets-level programming for http, as opposed to post/put commands, I would like to offer the following question to the list in hopes that you all can give me some more clues about sockets. Q1) If it is the case that post is untrustworthy or about to become extinct, then what will be the socket equivalent of the following post command? post -Database=Students.fp3-layout=LayoutNameHere-Response=ResponseFileNameHere Social_Security=333444333-search to url http://##. ##. ##. #/Action.lasso This Post command will search for #333444333 in Social Security field in Students database and, through a response file, return the student's first name, last name etc. >From a browser's perspective the HTML equivalent of post command above (in the form of the web link) will be: A HREF=action.lasso?-database=Students.fp3-layout=Details-response=Studen tInfo.lassoSocial_Security=333444333-searchClick this link to retrieve students Information/A So, the number 1 Qustion really is what will be the socket equivalent of the following post command? post -Database=Students.fp3-layout=LayoutNameHere-Response=ResponseFileNameHere Social_Security=333444333-search to url http://##. ##. ##. #/Action.lasso Q2 through 5) Why are socket-level solutions, when finally written, likely to be more reliable? Are they truly more flexible? Why is the required programmer's knowledge load being moved from built-in to build-your-own with these improvements? Will this level offer, for example, one to trap a failed return so a call can be reissued? This is a complex mix of MC rules and http rules that I'm trying to get a handle on and somehow haven't yet fully grasped. And I am willing to try to learn it if it really will solve my problem. Where can I start? I suspect we have a few really savvy internet MC developers out there who can help, if not by explanations at least by offering working examples, and any help would be greatly appreciated, either on or off list. Thanks, Roger -- Dr. Roger D. Ray Department of Psychology Rollins Coll
Re: post vs put vs ?sockets? for
I have a problem that I haven't been able to solve, and I thought--again, since I've posted a brief version of a part of this issue before--that perhaps someone on the list might be able to help. And sorry I had to make it so long-winded Problem: I have a dual server configuration where a dedicated "slave" server (500 Mhz G4 Mac) is giving database services by being directly connected to a database-application/internet server (NT dual 700 Mhz Dell) listening for WAN/http calls for data. MC is a custom browser asking for db record data. While in a true WAN environment, approximately 5-10% of my MC-generated "post" calls never generate a return from the http server, even though the database records being called for are clearly found and delivered to the NT (as apparent in the db application's "found records" status when looking at the NT server directly). Netscape/IE _never_ fail to generate returns when we query the db through the web, which throws some suspicion on MC. Details are: I am using post commands similar to one provided below to communicate through lasso (CGI application from BlueWorld) with FileMaker Pro application/database located on the web/db servers. FileMaker Pro database is used as a back end for my MetaCard stacks on the client machines. I moved this configuration to a relatively quite LAN with very good bandwidth for benchwork evaluations and the failures still persist, only at about a .5-1% rate instead of the 5-10% rate. I am still evaluating setups and all that jazz on the NT to see if the NT is the problem, but still have to wonder whether MC is in any way at fault or can be used to generate a "work-around" solution. For example, if MC just didn't "hang" when the response doesn't come back in, I could check for returned results, if finding empty-- re-send the query and go on. OK. I did a little experimenting and it appears that instead of using the "post" command I may use a "put" command as well. This means that instead of post "-database=Students.fp3-layout=FirstStep-response=Field:'gbRespOne'-recor dI D=48-search" to url "http://##. ##. ##. #/FMP_MC/Action.lasso" (of course a real IP nbr goes where ##'s are) I can simply use put url "http://##. ##. ##. #/FMP_MC/action.lasso?-database=Students.fp3-layout=Firs tStep-response=Field:'gbRespOne'-recordID=48-search" into fld "report" with the same result. Now, I haven't had the luxury yet of testing whether this improves on the percentage of unreturned calls, but the following issue comes up regardless: If I recall various sources of information correctly, Scott has suggested that MC is likely to lose the "post" command from the next version of MC in favor of socket-level coding. Scott -- is this correct? If so, is the "put url" also likely to go? Is there a difference in how they work underneath? But more importantly. because I only partly understand the mechanics of using "sockets-level" programming for http, as opposed to post/put commands, I would like to offer the following question to the list in hopes that you all can give me some more clues about "sockets." Q1) If it is the case that "post" is untrustworthy or about to become extinct, then what will be the "socket" equivalent of the following post command? It's really not that scary. The higher level of control/monitoring over what is going on makes it worth learning. In your example you would do something like this: open socket xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:80 ##open connection to the server on port 80 write stuff to socket xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:80 ##write the POST stuff just like a browser would read from socket xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:80 until eof ## get the result from the server. put it into var1 A while back I answered a similar post with *real* examples, look through the archives for this month or the one before. I would also suspect the other side - server+lasso. I would also try POSTing the whole header just like a browser would. There is a mac tool OTSessioWatcher by Stairways which allows you to follow what exactly is sent and received in a network communication which can show you what a browser sends and what the server replies. post "-Database=Students.fp3-layout=LayoutNameHere-Response=ResponseFileNameHer e Social_Security=333444333-search" to url "http://##. ##. ##. #/Action.lasso" This Post command will search for #333444333 in Social Security field in Students database and, through a response file, return the student's first name, last name etc. From a browser's perspective the HTML equivalent of post command above (in the form of the web link) will be: A HREF="action.lasso?-database=Students.fp3-layout=Details-response=Studen tInfo.lassoSocial_Security=333444333-search"Click this link to retrieve students Information/A So, the number 1 Qustion really is what will be the "socket" equivalent of the following post command? post "-Database=Students.fp3-layout=LayoutNameHere-Response=ResponseFileNameHer e
