Search Results

Search found 4 results on 1 pages for 'valdo'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• XmlHttpRequest bug?

  - by valdo

  Hello all. I'm writing a program that among other things needs to download a file given its URL. I'm too lazy to implement the Http/Https protocols manually, so that I needed some library/object/function that'll do the job. Critical requirement: The download must be asynchronous. That is, the thread that issued the download must be able to do something else "while" downloading the file, plus the download must be able to be aborted anytime without any barbaric side effects (such as internal call to TerminateThread). Nice-to-have requirements: Should be able to download the file "into memory". Means - read the contents of the file as they arrive, not necessarily save it into some "file system" file. It'd be nice to have some convenient Win32 progress notification mechanism (waitable event, semahpore, completion port, etc.), rather than just periodically polling the download status. I've chosen the XmlHttpRequest COM object to do the work. It seemed to work fine enough, plus it supported asynchronous mode. However I noticed that after some period it just stops working. That is, after several successful file downloads it stops downloading anything. I periodically poll it to get its status, it reports "in-progress", but nothing actually happens, and there's no network activity. Moreover, when the same process creates another instance of XmlHttpRequest object to perform new downloads - the effect is the same. The object reports "in progress", whereas it doesn't even try to connect to the server (according to network sniffers and system TCP state). The only way to make this object work back is to restart the process. This makes me suspect that there's a sort of a bug (sorry, I meant undocumented feature) in the object. Also it's not a bug at the level of an individual object, since the problem persists when the object is destroyed and another one is created. It's probably some global state of the DLL that implements this object. Does anyone know something about this? Is this a known bug? I'm pretty sure there's no chance that I have another bug in my code, because of which it seems to me to be the bug is in the XmlHttpRequest. I've done enoughtests and spent time with the debugger to conclude without reasonable doubt that it's just the object stops working. BTW, while the object should work, I do all the waiting via MsgWaitXXXX API calls. So that if this object needs the message loop to work properly (for instance, it may create a hidden notification window and bind it to a socket via WSAAsyncSelect) - I give it the opportunity.

  Read the article

• How to compute a unicode string which bidirectional representation is specified?

  - by valdo

  Hello, fellows. I have a rather pervert question. Please forgive me :) There's an official algorithm that describes how bidirectional unicode text should be presented. http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/tr9-15.html I receive a string (from some 3rd-party source), which contains latin/hebrew characters, as well as digits, white-spaces, punctuation symbols and etc. The problem is that the string that I receive is already in the representation form. I.e. - the sequence of characters that I receive should just be presented from left to right. Now, my goal is to find the unicode string which representation is exactly the same. Means - I need to pass that string to another entity; it would then render this string according to the official algorithm, and the result should be the same. Assuming the following: The default text direction (of the rendering entity) is RTL. I don't want to inject "special unicode characters" that explicitly override the text direction (such as RLO, RLE, etc.) I suspect there may exist several solutions. If so - I'd like to preserve the RTL-looking of the string as much as possible. The string usually consists of hebrew words mostly. I'd like to preserve the correct order of those words, and characters inside those words. Whereas other character sequences may (and should) be transposed. One naive way to solve this is just to swap the whole string (this takes care of the hebrew words), and then swap inside it sequences of non-hebrew characters. This however doesn't always produce correct results, because actual rules of representation are rather complex. The only comprehensive algorithm that I see so far is brute-force check. The string can be divided into sequences of same-class characters. Those sequences may be joined in random order, plus any of them may be reversed. I can check all those combinations to obtain the correct result. Plus this technique may be optimized. For instance the order of hebrew words is known, so we only have to check different combinations of their "joining" sequences. Any better ideas? If you have an idea, not necessarily the whole solution - it's ok. I'll appreciate any idea. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• huge C file debugging problem

  - by valdo

  Hello all. I have a source file in my project, which has more than 65,536 code lines (112,444 to be exact). I'm using an "sqlite amalgamation", which comes in a single huge source file. I'm using MSVC 2005. The problems arrives during debugging. Everything compiles and links ok. But then when I'm trying to step into a function with the debugger - it shows an incorrect code line. What's interesting is that the difference between the correct line number and the one the debugger shows is exactly 65536. This makes me suspect (almost be sure in) some unsigned short overflow. I also suspect that it's not a bug in the MSVC itself. Perhaps it's the limitation of the debug information format. That is, the debug information format used by MSVC stores the line numbers as 2-byte shorts. Is there anything can be done about this (apart from cutting the huge file into several smaller ones) ?

  Read the article

• int vs const int&

  - by Valdo

  I've noticed that I usually use constant references as return values or arguments. I think the reason is that it works almost the same as using non-reference in the code. But it definitely takes more space and function declarations become longer. I'm OK with such code but I think some people my find it a bad programming style. What do you think? Is it worth writing const int& over int? I think it's optimized by the compiler anyway, so maybe I'm just wasting my time coding it, a?

  Read the article

1