I'm trying to find out how to use Eclipse Milo, and finding out how subscriptions go. I can easily get any MonitoringMode.Reporting mode subscription to work, but when I use Sampling it doesn't call the callback method (as expected). According to the docs it's supposed to "queue" up the values without calling the callback, but I can't find any place I can access that queue or anything similar. The UaMonitoredItem doesn't have anything in its interface that looks like it, neither does the request.
It's probably something obvious, but what am I doing wrong?
Thank you in advance!
Answered in the GitHub repo discussions, but for posterity:
MonitoringMode.Sampling simply means the server continues to sample the underlying but does not report the values to the client.
The queued values are not available to you. If you change back to MonitoringMode.Reporting then they would be the first values reported for that item.
Related
I need to know if googletag.pubads().disableInitialLoad() was called, in which case I'll load an ad using a display and a refresh calls, otherwise I'll load it using just display. My assumption is that if I always call display plus refresh I will get 2 ad requests unless disableInitialLoad had been called.
Is it possible to know that?
There is an undocumented variable on pubads that internally saves the state of disableInitialLoad, because it is undocumented you have to use it under your own risk.
the variable is window.google_DisableInitialLoad
Hope it is still usefull to you.
There is a method in GPT for doing this which is: isInitialLoadDisabled()
And as Claudio wrote - it's good practice not to use undocumented variables.
Undocumented variables might not do exactly what you think they do - and their behaviour might change at any point (see avoiding common GPT implementation mistakes).
When using the PayPal JS v2 SDK, we usually a get device_data parameter in the call back.
I wasn't able to find any reference to this parameter, except in the Braintree::Transaction.sale documentation.
In production we intermittently see that no device_data parameter comes with the call back.
Is this expected behavior?
What causes it, and are there any implications?
Should we simply omit passing device_data on to Braintree::Transaction.sale?
device_data is a piece of parameter that contains various information about the customer device for fraud detection. Things like, device_session_id, fraud_merchant_id, correlation_id will be part of the device data. All these information are for fraud detection and risk information.
This is something which you should provide whenever you look for support in the future.
I am not sure if this is an issue/intended to have no device_data returned in the callback, perhaps you should give them a call at 877.434.2894 or email their Support team to check if there is an issue on this.
However, if you are not passing the device_data parameter in Braintree::Transaction.sale, I suppose that is fine. But the best practice is to have that piece of information.
I've got a Backbone web application that talks to a RESTful PHP server. For PUT and POST it matters in which order the requests arrive at the server and for GET it matters in which order the responses arrive at the client.
The web application does not need to be used concurrently by multiple users, but what might happen is that the user changes its name twice really fast. Then the order in which the server processes PUT /name/Ann and PUT /name/Bea determines whether the name is set to Ann or Bea.
Backbone.Safesync and Backbone.Sync.AjaxQueue are two libraries that try to solve this problem. Doesn't Safesync only solve the problem with GET? Sync.AjaxQueue is outdated, but might serve as inspiration to implement a custom queued sync function. Making sync synchronous would solve the problem. If a request is only sent after the previous response is received, then only one request is processed at a time.
Any advice on how to proceed?
BTW: I don't think using PATCH requests would solve anything, because in my example the same attribute is changed twice.
There's a few ways to solve this, here's two:
add a timestamp to all requests, store it in the DB as "modified" and let the server check whether the timestamp of the new request is later than the one in the DB in order to be valid
use Promises to delay the second request from being made before the first one is responded on, there's a promise/deferred mechanism built into jquery, but you can also use a 3rd party one, for instance Q or when
If you can afford the delay, an easy approach is to set the async option to false when you call whatever method you're calling that results in the Backbone.sync. For example, in the appropriate model(s) simply override the default sync method to include the additional option.
I'm building an app that deals with customer queries, where I want to route the query through a decision tree showing appropriate views before taking some automated action against their query. Kind of like the game "20 questions"! Based on the answers at each stage, the path through the app will change.
I was thinking of using MVC, because there are only a few "types" of route and outcome - so I could build fewer pages that way, one to handle each type rather than one for each step. I was also thinking of using Workflow 4 to manage the page flow, because the flowchart model maps pretty nicely to what I'm trying to do.
Does anyone know any good reference apps that use Workflow for this kind of thing?
Thanks
Richard
There where a number of examples using WF3 doing this sort of thing but I haven't seen any for WF4. I suppose it is possible to do but it means running the workflow synchronously and checking the bookmarks as soon as it becomes idle to see which operations are enabled at the moment. That should be possible using a custom SynchronizationContext that does things synchronous and using the Idle callback on the WorklfowApplication to check the current bookmarks.
I actually went with a different option in the end - I wrote a "GetNextAction" function that returned an ActionResult object based on my flowchart logic and state of objects. The controller processes whatever form inputs it's received, updates the object, then calls GetNextAction and returns the result of that function. Seems to be working out ok!
I've not found a answer to this question anywhere, but this seems like a typical problem:
I would like to send some POST-Requests (with ASIHTTPRequest, what I already do), but if something goes wrong, ther user can decide to "Try Later", that means, the task should be put on a queue and this queue should be read next time the application starts. So, that's my question: how to "save" the queue, so that the app can read it next time it starts? Is it possible to "read" the queue and try sending this POST-Request again, let's say, 10 min later, even if the application is not running?
What kind of documentation should I read in order to be able to do this?
I would be very glad to hear any answers. Thanks in advance.
P.S.: Another Idea I have: as I just have to Upload Photos, I could have a folder with all the Photos that still need to be uploaded, and when the App starts, the app looks at this folder and try to send all the photos in this folder. Does it make sense?
My approach for this issue would be like this:
Whenever you fail to send details - write content of the array to a file using '[NSArray writeToFile:]' you can use serialization if array contain any data which is custom defined (if your array contain standard cocoa objects(NSString,NSData etc) they already implemented with serialization )
When app launches; load the content from file directly to an array object ('[NSArray arrayWithContentsOfFile:]')
then construct http request and try sending. In application the data(in your case array) is stored/serialized not the request, you need to reconstruct the http request when you want to try one more time.(don't try serializing ASIHTTPRequest, you have reconstruct it)
I'm going to assume you've already looked at NSOperationQueue and NSOperation. AFAIK there is no built-in support for serializing NSOperation, but you could very easily write your own serialization mechanism for an NSOperation subclass that you use for posting data and write the an NSOperationQueue's operations to disk if something goes wrong.
Without knowing too many details it's hard to give a precise answer. There are many ways to write data to disk and load it again later, the direction you take will be largely dependent on your situation.