[Implemented] Network completion

Shannara · Post by **Shannara** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:03 pm

I am wishing in pb 4.1 for the completion of the network library. I figured since 4.0 is basically feature complete and only bug fixes are happening from now on to make it as stable as possible ...

Any chance to complete the network library? The multiple ports are a great start. I am hoping that the rest would be implimented sometime down the road so PB would be a usable solution on the server side of networking.

Or if anything Fred, please let us users know if you are planning to add any server side networking features in PB natively or if users will have to use 3rd party libraries to use PB for server side.

USCode · Post by **USCode** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:35 pm

I haven't done a lot of network server work, what in particular did you have in mind?

Shannara · Post by **Shannara** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:26 am

The ability to bind/listen on a particular IP address when a box have multiple IP addresses. Basically, most servers out there have multiple ip addresses. Especially dedicated servers. This is one of the key features missing from PB. I believe this was mentioned before but no definate answer.

I know some people dont understand the why this is needed, even with explainations, but ah well.

USCode · Post by **USCode** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:03 am

Shannara wrote:...I know some people dont understand the why this is needed, even with explainations, but ah well.

Well I think most people probably use PB to produce apps on single-user machines with single IP addresses, so they don't feel your pain... I'm trying to be empathetic.

Can you give an example of the kind of command you're looking for or how the existing commands might need to be changed?

I assume you weren't able to make any headway with the Indy library or that it wouldn't serve your needs either?
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... light=indy

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:13 am

yea shanarra has you done any work with indy yet?

Shannara · Post by **Shannara** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:37 pm

Ive been working on converting for the includes. The reason for this post is to have Fred state once and for all whether he is commited to fleshing out the network library or leave it for the users to find other ways to flesh it out ,either third parties or a different language via DLL.

That is basically what I was looking for in this post, Fred's official response, or anybody else on the team. That way, anybody who's evaluating PureBasic for their server needs will have the answer straight from Fred

Or anybody who's on the team

We would have a thread to point them to whether its a "Yes, but in the future", or "No, it will never be supported".

Post by **Berikco** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:39 pm

Shannara wrote:We would have a thread to point them to whether its a "Yes, but in the future", or "No, it will never be supported".

And "Maybe" ?

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:55 pm

Why the hell would one use a dll to do network stuff plain API is that hell easy and hell easy to do cross platform too. And about the binng issue it's not a must have feature I have got a PB written server running on a dedicated Linux server its up for more then 2 months without crashing or showing any problems and it is even using plain PB Networking, If you don't bind a Client socket it will still work with multiple ips but it will be accessible form all of them...

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:11 pm

@shannarra: Tell if you get something good out of it!

Shannara · Post by **Shannara** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:18 am

Nik wrote:Why the hell would one use a dll to do network stuff plain API is that hell easy and hell easy to do cross platform too. And about the binng issue it's not a must have feature I have got a PB written server running on a dedicated Linux server its up for more then 2 months without crashing or showing any problems and it is even using plain PB Networking, If you don't bind a Client socket it will still work with multiple ips but it will be accessible form all of them...

Exactly, please read my post. I was saying to bind against one ip not multiple

This is extremely useful, and in most cases required in any corporate environment where a server have multiple ip addresses mapped to it.

thefool: I will definately do that. Once I get to that point, I'll just release the whole source on these forums.

thefool · Post by **thefool** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:37 pm

Shannara wrote: thefool: I will definately do that. Once I get to that point, I'll just release the whole source on these forums.

Sounds great!

Shannara · Post by **Shannara** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:00 pm

No problemo

Now to the PB team ... any decision?

Post by **Fred** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:29 pm

May be.

Shannara · Post by **Shannara** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:48 pm

Lol, Fred, your my he ro

blueznl · Post by **blueznl** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:55 pm

posted way back some winsock samples, they're pretty easy, can't you use those?