n00m wrote:
[...]
Btw, the newest oops in the topic's subject is:
the code does not work in the case of:
sqls_host, sqls_port = '192.168.0.8', 1433
proxy_host, proxy_port = '192.168.0.3', 1434
## proxy_host, proxy_port = '127.0.0.1', 1434
## proxy_host, proxy_port = '', 1434
I.e.
Thanks, Bryan, for the details!
Btw, the newest oops in the topic's subject is:
the code does not work in the case of:
sqls_host, sqls_port = '192.168.0.8', 1433
proxy_host, proxy_port = '192.168.0.3', 1434
## proxy_host, proxy_port = '127.0.0.1', 1434
## proxy_host, proxy_port = '', 1434
I.e.
I was trying to test the send() vs sendall() like this:
x=send(data)
print len(data)-x 0 ? (when the code fails)
but I could not reproduce the failures anymore.
As if the lan got refreshed after the first
using of sendall() instead of send().
Btw, why we need send() if there is sendall()?
--
n00m wrote:
Btw, why we need send() if there is sendall()?
Mostly because sendall() can block, even if you do all the
select() and setblocking() magic. That's no problem in the
threaded architecture we're using, but a deal-breaker for a
single-threaded server.
--
--Bryan
--
n00m wrote:
Bryan;
Look at how I corrected your the very first version
(see added arguments in both functions). And now it
really can handle multiple connections!
Ah, yes, I see. (In my defense, I had already fixed that bug in
my second version.)
--
--Bryan
--
Bryan Olson wrote:
Ah, yes, I see. (In my defense, I had already fixed that bug in
my second version.)
1.
Yes! I myself noticed that, but your 2nd version looks
a bit more verbose.
2.
This all means... what? ONLY send() vs sendall() matters?
Sometimes send() really sends ALL and my version works
Bryan wrote:
Do you want to be a network engineer?
lol... definetely not! It's just my curiosity.
At my work my tools are: vba, vbs, jet-sql (ms access),
t-sql (ms sql server). The pretty humble set.
My first two guess are:
The client is trying to make more than one connection.
n00m wrote:
Your last version works like a champ. It easily handles up
to 5 instances of my.vbs! Except of this thing:
AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'SHUT_WR'
Seems it's a pure Unix constant.
No, my guess is that you're running an old version of Python.
The constant
n00m wrote:
Bryan wrote:
PS Yes! Your last version works like a champ. It easily handles up
to 5 instances of my.vbs! Except of this thing:
AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'SHUT_WR'
Seems it's a pure Unix constant.
Definitely not. Are you sure you've got a proper Python
1.
Python 2.3.4
2.
Win98 and Win2k Professional
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
Bryan Olson declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
No, my guess is that you're running an old version of Python.
The constant was added in the source on 27 Nov 2003; I'm not
Are you sure of that 2003?
Yes, but that's when it went into the source, in
Bryan;
Look at how I corrected your the very first version
(see added arguments in both functions). And now it
really can handle multiple connections!
import socket, thread
sqls_host, sqls_port = '127.0.0.1', 1433
proxy_host, proxy_port = '127.0.0.1', 1434
# How I tested it:
# sqls_host,
I wrote:
Below is a version that respects ^C to terminate
more-or-less cleanly.
Oops, one more bug^H^H^H improvement. I forgot to shutdown
writing.
import socket, threading, select
sqls_host, sqls_port = '192.168.0.3', 1443
proxy_host, proxy_port = '', 1434
def
My today's tests (over LAN).
I think *it* will drive me mad very soon.
Firstly I tested both Bryan's codes. And they worked fine!
Just as if they were tested locally!
Then I tested Fredrik suggestion. And it worked out too.
Expect unexpected, - as they say.
At last I decided to test my own
n00m wrote:
My today's tests (over LAN).
I think *it* will drive me mad very soon.
Conflicting results snipped
Network programming is like that. Just because something worked
once doesn't mean it really works. I had guessed two causes for
the behavior you were seeing, and either could result
n00m [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PEOPLE, WHY ON THE EARTH IT DOES NOT WORK OVER LAN ???
what happens if you change
s1.bind((host, port))
to
s1.bind((, port))
?
/F
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
* n00m [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-08-31 05:45]:
import socket, thread
host, port = '192.168.0.3', 1434
s1 = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
s2 = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
s2.connect((host, 1433))
s1.bind((host, port))
I think the problem is that you're
Bryan;
I tested your code locally (in I*D*L*E) - it works fine!
And of course I'll test it over LAN but only tomorrow - at work.
See the picture of my IDLE window with output of your code:
http://free.7host02.com/n00b/socket_Br.gif
Note the 4th line in Blue: there Z is the name of my home machine,
n00m wrote:
Bryan;
I tested your code locally (in I*D*L*E) - it works fine!
Glad it worked, but I'd still disrecommend IDLE for that
version. Threads may live after the program seems to be done
(and may still own the port you need). Below is a version that
respects ^C to terminate
n00m wrote:
import socket, thread
host, port = '192.168.0.3', 1434
s1 = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
s2 = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
s2.connect((host, 1433))
s1.bind((host, port))
s1.listen(1)
cn, addr = s1.accept()
def VB_SCRIPT():
while
On 2005-08-31, Peter Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. I'm not at all sure that accessing the same socket object
simultaneously from two threads is safe.
It's OK under Unix. Having one thread handle rx and a
different one handle tx is a pretty widely used method.
Don't know about Win32...
On 31 Aug 2005 06:03:00 -0700, n00m [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
import socket, thread
host, port = '192.168.0.3', 1434
s1 = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
s2 = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
s2.connect((host, 1433))
s1.bind((host, port))
s1.listen(1)
cn, addr =
Thank you all for your replies!
1.
repr() is not what I need (currently).
I'd better like to see the pure text of talkings between VBS and SQL
Server.
2.
Jp, thank you very much for the links!
I just oblige to test this Twisted stuff, but I'm afraid it's a bit
above my head
so far.
And, frankly
Grant Edwards wrote:
Peter Hansen wrote:
2. I'm not at all sure that accessing the same socket object
simultaneously from two threads is safe.
It's OK under Unix. Having one thread handle rx and a
different one handle tx is a pretty widely used method.
Don't know about Win32...
n00m wrote:
import socket, thread
host, port = '192.168.0.3', 1434
Consider using INADDR_ANY instead of the specific host IP
address. The empty string will resolve to INADDR_ANY if passed
as the host to bind(). (Though that's not the problem.)
s1 = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET,
25 matches
Mail list logo
