Winsock
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: Timer Class
Next: String formatting question
From: Dee Earley on 13 May 2010 12:33 On 12/05/2010 18:46, Jim Bunton wrote: > I have a vb application which uses winsock to "POST" an Http request > and report on the response > [windows XP ] > [vb 32 bit for Windows - over 10 yres old!] > gets an appropriate response > > I have written a similar application in VB in Access 2000 > It does not get the appropriate response it gives > 501 Method Not Implemented > index.html not supported > > This is not a Winsock.Error response > It is generated by the DataArrival event > > Does it mean that the Winsock ActiveX Control in Access 2000 is different to > that used in VB? <SNIP> > <h1>Method Not Implemented</h1> > <p>� " to /index.html not supported.<br /> The message suggests that there is a failed attempt at handling redirects or the data is not what you expect. Have you tried using fiddler or wireshark to tell exactly what is being sent and received? Note that is is much safer to use the Inet control as it handles all the quirks of HTTP for you. -- Dee Earley (dee.earley(a)icode.co.uk) i-Catcher Development Team iCode Systems (Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the group.)
From: Jim Bunton on 15 May 2010 12:46 "Dee Earley" <dee.earley(a)icode.co.uk> wrote in message news:e70FZor8KHA.5848(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > On 12/05/2010 18:46, Jim Bunton wrote: >> I have a vb application which uses winsock to "POST" an Http request >> and report on the response >> [windows XP ] >> [vb 32 bit for Windows - over 10 yres old!] >> gets an appropriate response >> >> I have written a similar application in VB in Access 2000 >> It does not get the appropriate response it gives >> 501 Method Not Implemented >> index.html not supported >> >> This is not a Winsock.Error response >> It is generated by the DataArrival event >> >> Does it mean that the Winsock ActiveX Control in Access 2000 is different >> to >> that used in VB? > <SNIP> >> <h1>Method Not Implemented</h1> >> <p>� " to /index.html not supported.<br /> > > The message suggests that there is a failed attempt at handling redirects > or the data is not what you expect. > > Have you tried using fiddler or wireshark to tell exactly what is being > sent and received? > > Note that is is much safer to use the Inet control as it handles all the > quirks of HTTP for you. > > -- > Dee Earley (dee.earley(a)icode.co.uk) > i-Catcher Development Team > > iCode Systems > > (Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. > Please reply to the group.) Dear Dee, Thank you for your response to my posting. I am not familiar with fiddler or wireshark but will look into them. My attempts to use the Inet control have hit a snag - access proclaims that there is a problem with my ole server when I attempt to add the Inet control and, to make matters worse I cannot put my hands on my office installation disc. I will however attend to this asap. In the mean time I am looking at other ways of investigating looking at what exactly is being passed by sending the post to another lo cal socket So far the results are mystifying. I've tried enclosing the string being sent in " The results are similar. The receiving socket reports that 4�s �} O � � �� has been received! Or something similar without the surronding " Jim Bunton Jim Bunton
From: Dee Earley on 17 May 2010 06:55 On 15/05/2010 17:46, Jim Bunton wrote: > In the mean time I am looking at other ways of investigating looking at what > exactly is being passed by sending the post to another lo cal > socket > > So far the results are mystifying. I've tried enclosing the string being > sent in " > The results are similar. > The receiving socket reports that > > 4�s > �} > O � � > �� > > has been received! Or something similar without the surronding " Using what code? -- Dee Earley (dee.earley(a)icode.co.uk) i-Catcher Development Team iCode Systems (Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the group.)
From: Dee Earley on 20 May 2010 05:42 On 19/05/2010 19:27, Jim Bunton wrote: > Ah! thanks for suggesting the Internet Control > I did eventually get it into existence > [my ole server just recovered itself at some point] > I flirted with it for a while > However after it adamantly refused to recognise Odj.close as an > appropriate part of the conversation > under any circumstances I could devise > I decided that perhaps me and the Internet control weren't really suited to > each other. Why would it need a .Close? It is an (almost) atomic control so you call a method and it returns when it's finished and you read the reply. There is no close as there is nothing to close. -- Dee Earley (dee.earley(a)icode.co.uk) i-Catcher Development Team iCode Systems (Replies direct to my email address will be ignored. Please reply to the group.)
|
Pages: 1 Prev: Timer Class Next: String formatting question |