Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

ANN: New FF2 Transports

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Paul Motyer [TPX]

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 4:38:51 PM11/26/02
to
I'm beta testing my new FF2 transports. Currently only for Delphi 7
and FF 2.12 - for URL see the signature

--
,-._|\ Paul Motyer [TPX]
/ Oz \ SoftStuff P/L
\_,--._/ [paul.motyer at tpx.turbopower dot com]
v [http://members.optushome.com.au/paulmotyer]


Paul Motyer [TPX]

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 1:20:40 AM11/27/02
to
"Paul Motyer [TPX]" wrote

> I'm beta testing my new FF2 transports.
> Currently only for Delphi 7
> and FF 2.12 - for URL see the signature

Versions now available for:

D4.03 + FF 2.12
D5.01 + FF 2.12
D7.00 + FF 2.12

D6 version not yet available - I've yet to install the compiler
No C++B versions - I haven't got any

Arnd Iffland

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 3:27:06 AM11/27/02
to
Hallo Paul,

i just tried the new transports for D5 but i can't connect to the new
server. The transport is active on the server.

Do you have an idea what i have to check?

Regards,

Arnd


Paul Motyer [TPX]

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 4:34:55 AM11/27/02
to
"Arnd Iffland" wrote

> i just tried the new transports for D5 but i can't connect

If you are using Shared Mem you need to ensure the Transport on the
Server is in Listen Mode. The Client should be Send

For TCP you need to set the Port of Server & Client to the same
number.

If you use the example in the DOC file, then the example dpr should
have the Port set correctly.

Arnd Iffland

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 5:06:59 AM11/27/02
to
Paul,

> > i just tried the new transports for D5 but i can't connect
>
> If you are using Shared Mem you need to ensure the Transport on the
> Server is in Listen Mode. The Client should be Send
>
> For TCP you need to set the Port of Server & Client to the same
> number.
>
> If you use the example in the DOC file, then the example dpr should
> have the Port set correctly.

I did use your example and the port is set correct. It is a little bit wired
because sometimes the server is found, sometimes not.
The message count increases all times.

Is there anything i can test in my configuration?

Arnd

Arnd Iffland

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 5:33:30 AM11/27/02
to
> > The message count increases all times.
>
> Ah. I increase the message count on Datagrams as well as TCP
> messages - that way you can see if the call from the client gets to
> the server.
>
> Try increasing the TffClient timeout. 10000 (10 sec) should do
>
> Does SharedMem Transport work?

SharedMem is running well.
The TCP protocols are running if i set the server name property (your
protocol seems to be very fast!).

But GetServerNames still make some problems. Sometimes is returns the server
name, sometimes not.

Arnd

Paul Motyer [TPX]

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 5:12:32 AM11/27/02
to
"Arnd Iffland" wrote

> The message count increases all times.

Ah. I increase the message count on Datagrams as well as TCP


messages - that way you can see if the call from the client gets to
the server.

Try increasing the TffClient timeout. 10000 (10 sec) should do

Does SharedMem Transport work?

--

Paul Motyer [TPX]

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 1:01:39 AM12/5/02
to
"Paul Motyer [TPX]" wrote

> Versions now available for:
>
> D4.03 + FF 2.12
> D5.01 + FF 2.12
> D7.00 + FF 2.12
>
> D6 version not yet available

New Beta 6 versions available supporting D4 --> D7. See my sig for
download site.

FF2.12 Transports using SharedMem & Blocking TCP Sockets

Several times faster than the legacy transports

New in Beta 6:

- New D 6.02/RTL#1 version - now versions for D4, D5, D6 and D7
- RLE (Run Length Encoding) compression/decompression
- Basic XOR encryption
- Blowfish 200+ bit key encryption/decryption
- Full (optional) logging - error logging, receive
message logging and reply message logging
- Full Transport level statistics on each connection
including send/receive message counts, byte counts
and times

Paul Motyer [TPX]

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 2:11:44 AM12/5/02
to
"Paul Motyer [TPX]" wrote

> - RLE (Run Length Encoding) compression/decompression

> - Blowfish 200+ bit key encryption/decryption

Here are some test results of performance using RLE+Blowfish on times
to scan a table with a Record Length of about 1.5 Kb (making it
compressable) having 47,750 records:

Legacy TCP Time: 38.90 sec
Blocking TCP Compression OFF Encryption OFF Time: 27.24 sec
Blocking TCP Compression ON Encryption OFF Time: 16.82 sec
Blocking TCP Compression ON Blowfish 208 bit key strength Encryption
ON Time: 21.67 sec

These results are with Server & Workstation on separate machines
across a 100 Mbit ethernet. Previous results were with Server & W/S on
the same machine.

Terry Haan

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 11:55:25 AM12/5/02
to
> - RLE (Run Length Encoding) compression/decompression
> - Basic XOR encryption
> - Blowfish 200+ bit key encryption/decryption

My FF application can connect to two different FF Servers. A local server
on the same network and simultaneously a remote server over a DSL/Cable
link.

Is it possible to have one transport set to use compression/encryption and
the other not ?

Are the compress/encryption settings at the discretion of the client only ?
(of course with a FFServer compiled with the same transport)

What are your plans for selling/licensing your components ?

Thanks,
Terry


Paul Motyer [TPX]

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 5:30:03 PM12/5/02
to
"Terry Haan" wrote

> Is it possible to have one transport set to use
> compression/encryption and the other not ?

Yes.

In fact the same Transport component can do it - rather than using
two. Transport components are thread safe at both the server and
client ends. One Transport component can support multiple TffClients
and each TffClient supports one connection. Each connection has its
own compression/encryption settings.

> Are the compress/encryption settings at the discretion of the
client only ?

Yes - except on initial connection

When the Client connects (via EstablishConnection) it gets its initial
compression/encryption settings from the server. After that the server
never changes them but each client can change them independently of
the other. Alternately, Client-side, you can change all connections of
a Transport in one step if you want.

I'm considering adding an auto-detection server-side option that sets
the initial compression/encryption based on whether the IP is local or
not and its speed. This way, one just turns the option on and it will
turn on compression and encryption for you when needed. This isn't in
there currently.

> What are your plans for selling/licensing your components ?

I was thinking of full source for $50 giving unlimited usage for that
individual/entity. The code is fairly clean and commented & currently
over 5000 lines. But I'm open to suggestions

--
,-._|\ Paul Motyer [TPX]
/ Oz \ SoftStuff P/L
\_,--._/ [paul.motyer at tpx.turbopower dot com]

v [ http://members.optushome.com.au/paulmotyer ].


Paul Motyer [TPX]

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 7:35:55 PM12/5/02
to
"Terry Haan" wrote

> That is reasonable.
> You might even be able to get a bit more for them (ie..
> $75.00) For $75 it's a no-brainer.
> The magic number to avoid is probably $100.00.

Thanks for the feedback. The more the merrier! <G>

I was considering using PayPal or similar

Terry Haan

unread,
Dec 5, 2002, 7:10:01 PM12/5/02
to
> I was thinking of full source for $50 giving unlimited usage for that
> individual/entity. The code is fairly clean and commented & currently
> over 5000 lines. But I'm open to suggestions

That is reasonable. You might even be able to get a bit more for them (ie..


$75.00) For $75 it's a no-brainer. The magic number to avoid is probably
$100.00.

Terry.


Keith Johnson

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 5:47:56 AM12/6/02
to
"Paul Motyer [TPX]" <nos...@no.spam.com> wrote in news:Yd2Re3KnCHA.4052
@tpsmail01.turbopower.net:

> I was thinking of full source for $50 giving unlimited usage for that
> individual/entity. The code is fairly clean and commented & currently
> over 5000 lines. But I'm open to suggestions

Hi Paul,

I don't think you will have any problems selling for $50, very fair
indeed..

Keith..

Srinivasan Iyer

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 10:08:43 AM12/6/02
to
> I was considering using PayPal or similar

Just to let you know that PayPal is a No-No for certain organizations. You
might also want to explore regsoft, DigiBuy, shareit etc.

Srini.

Richard Atwater

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 10:47:35 AM12/6/02
to
Paul -

Fantastic! - I haven't dug into this yet, since we have some
modifications of the transport for security. Full Source makes
everything possible.
Where do I send a check?

Richard Atwater

Srinivasan Iyer

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 11:40:49 AM12/6/02
to
Hi Sean,
I work for a government organization. I had used PayPal to make some
purchases for our department. I was audited. Later a fellow from our
purchase department told me to avoid PayPal as that was one of the flags
that they had used for audits.
Srini.
"Sean Winstead [TurboPower]" <se...@turbopower.com> wrote in message
news:65j1vu4t62g2bd6ha...@4ax.com...

>
> >Just to let you know that PayPal is a No-No for certain organizations.
>
> I'm curious about this statement. Can you provide more info?
>


Sean Winstead [TurboPower]

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 11:13:49 AM12/6/02
to

>Just to let you know that PayPal is a No-No for certain organizations.

I'm curious about this statement. Can you provide more info?

Paul Motyer [TPX]

unread,
Dec 6, 2002, 6:19:36 PM12/6/02
to
"Richard Atwater" wrote

> Where do I send a check?

<G>

It's still in beta!

0 new messages