> > I'm finding that the task of replacing the Mk$ functions with structures > > for UDP packet client/server transactions is a massive undertaking. So > > far it's affecting every part of my project that constructs, parses, > > sends and receives data. As a consequence the network code is going from > > dozens of lines to hundreds, and I'm beginning to see that the actual > > logic of network operations will need to be changed as well. > > > > I can deal with all of that, but right now I'm just trying to make it > > work without the program becoming ridiculously complex and/or > > inefficient. > > > > I have up to 256 different transaction types shared by the client and > > server. Each one is represented by a different structure containing > > multiple datatypes. The structures range from a few bytes to many KB of > > data. Values are assigned to a structure when a transaction must be > > sent, then the structure is sent by the client or server. The recipient > > then parses the structure and assigns its values to different variables. > > > > Each transaction has an "ID" which represents the order in which it was > > sent and where it should be assigned in the recipient's transaction > > queue array. This ensures that transactions received out of order are > > processed in order. Both the client and the server have their own > > transaction queues that store the transactions they receive. > > > > The transaction IDs range from 0-255, so originally I had a transaction > > queue array that was something like this: > > > > Public ts[256, 3] As String ' Server transactions (256: Queue Position, > > 3: Status, Type, Data). Status = "new" or "old". > > > > Each element of the transaction queue array was generic, meaning it > > could store any transaction type regardless of what data it contained. > > Now that I'm using structures, the transaction data is uniquely > > represented. Instead of a generic "data" string element that I could > > create/parse with MkSingle()/Single@(), I have a unique structure. How > > can I store a unique structure in a generic array of structures? Is this > > possible? Right now I'm thinking I need to have transaction queue arrays > > of [256,256] structures (65536 structures) to accommodate this. Not so > > good when any particular structure could be up to 198 KB + header. > > > > Any ideas are appreciated, as this is starting to make me postal! :) > > I haven't read the all thread, but: > > Using a structure just allow you to directly use the READ/WRITE instruction > because they have a build-in serialization support. But as you noticed, > handling a lot of different structures is not handy! > > Hopefully, you don't have to use structures. You can create one class for > each packet type, and let them inherit the same parent class. Each class > will have its own write method (and read) that will serialize/unserialize > the packet to/from a given stream (that should be a Socket). > > Regards,
OK... I should have read all that more carefully, as I have said rubbish. Sending a message to an UDP socket can only be done with a string or a structure. If you use several WRITE instructions, you will get one message by WRITE. Not a good thing... So my answer about object-oriented programming is useless. Or at least it will help you to understand what object-oriented programming is. So now ? I think I have to think... The problem with Mk*() functions is their endianness dependency. Maybe I can make these functions endianness-aware, but it is not a immediate job. Kevin, another Gambas 3 RC1 release killer. ;-) -- Benoît Minisini ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Create and publish websites with WebMatrix Use the most popular FREE web apps or write code yourself; WebMatrix provides all the features you need to develop and publish your website. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-webmatrix-sf _______________________________________________ Gambas-user mailing list Gambas-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gambas-user
