looking here it seems it is possible, but I'm not a Java guy.
https://developers.google.com/+/hangouts/api/gapi.hangout.telephone
I have an ongoing issue with my incoming phone lines not working and I have no way of knowing until someone calls my cell and says your number has been busy for hours what's up...
I'd like to make a simple extension/app that will dial my number once an hour, log the outcome of the call, and notify me (email/sms doesn't matter) if it was busy or other error. If the lines are working it will ring always and go to VM if I'm on the phone. When it dies, the caller either gets a busy, fast busy, or just dropped after 30 sec.
The phone company has been of no use in fixing the issue, so I want to log the status to prove just how often it happens.
Related
Going through the logs generated by my 'CoreBluetooth' state machine and have noticed on occasions a didDisconnectPeripheral is being called while the peripheral is in CBPeripheralStateConnecting and before a didConnectPeripheral. The code is immune to this strangeness however I would like to understand what is happening.
Anyone else experienced this or anything similar? I cannot find any logical explanation.
in iOS6 when CoreBluetooth was rather less mature I adopted the connection strategy of requesting a connection, if connection didn't result in the next 2 seconds, I would then call cancelPeripheralConnection and then issue another connectPeripheral this cycle would continue 3 further times before terminating and informing the user that something is wrong.
It would appear that the calls to didDisconnectPeripheral, even when not first connected, were a result of the intermediate calls to cancelPeripheralConnection.
Now with the stability of iOS7 and having learned that connectPeripheral never times out I have removed the complexity of intermediate cancelPeripheralConnection & connectPeripheral calls and just wait for the connection, with a timeout.
No more mystery didDisconnectPeripheral calls!
I have an app which continuously reads status updates from a server connection.
All is working well with a stream delegate to handle all the reading and writing asynchronously.
There's no part of the app that is "waiting" for a specific response from the server, it is just continuously handling status updates as they sporadically arrive from the socket. There are no requests on the client side that are waiting for responses.
I'm wondering what the best practice would be for the network activity indicator in this case.
I could turn it on in the stream event handler, and off before we leave the handler, but that would be a very short time (just enough for an non-blocking read or write to occur). Trying this, I only see the faintest flicker of the indicator; it needs to be on longer than just during the event handler.
What about turning it on in the stream delegate, and setting a timer to turn it off a short time later? (This would ensure it's on long enough to be seen, rather than the short time spent in the stream delegate.)
Note: I've tried this last idea: turning on the network activity indicator whenever there's stream activity, and note the NSDate; then in a timer (that I have fired every 1 second), if the time passsed is >.5 second, I turn off the indicator. This seems to give a reasonable indication of network activity.
Any better recommendations?
If the network activity is continuous then it sounds like it might be somewhat annoying to the user, especially if it's turning on and off all the time.
Perhaps better would be to test for lack-of-response up to a certain timeout value and then display an alert view to the user if you aren't getting any response from the server. Even that could be optional if you can provide feedback (like "Last update: 5 mins ago") to the user instead.
I'm writing a simple virtual serial port device to report an older serial port. By this point I'm able to enumerate the device and send/receive characters.
After a varying number of bulk-out transmissions from the host to the device the endpoint appears to give up and stop transferring data. On the PC side I receive a write error, and judging from a USBlyzer trace the music stops on a stall (USBD_STATUS_STALL_PID). However my code never intentionally issues a STALL condition on that endpoint and the status flag for having generated one never gets set though.
Given the short amount of time elapsed (<300 µs) between issuing the request and the STALL it would appear to be an invalid response of some sort, and not a time-out. On the device side the output endpoint is ready to go, with data in the buffer and proper DATA0/1 synchronization, but nothing further ever happens.
Note that the device appears to work fine even for long periods of time until I start sending "large" quantities of data. As near as I can tell the device enumeration/configuration also appears to complete successfully. Oh, and the bulk-in endpoint continues to work just fine after this.
For the record I'm using the standard Windows usbser.sys driver and an XMega128A4U µP. I'm also seeing the same behaviour across multiple Windows Vista and 7 machines.
Any ideas what I'm doing wrong or what further tests I might run to narrow things down?
USBlyzer log,
USB CDC stack,
test project
For the record this eventually turned out to be an oscillator problem. (Apparently the FLL's reference is always 1,024 Hz even when the 1,000 Hz USB frames are chosen. The slight clock error meant that a packet occasionally got rejected if it happened to contain one too many 1-bits in a row.)
I guess the moral of the story is to check the basics before assuming you've got a problem with the higher-level protocol. Also in retrospect a hardware USB analyzer would have been a worthwhile investment, the software alternatives mostly seems to spit out a generic error code or nothing at all when something goes awry.
Stalling the out-endpoint may happen on an overflow of the output buffer on the host side. Are you sure that the device does fetch the data it receives via out-endpoint - and if so does it fetch the data at least as fast as data is sent to the device?
Note that the device appears to work fine even for long periods of
time until I start sending "large" quantities of data.
This seems to be a hint for an overflow of the output-buffer.
I am creating a BREW app that requests the user's position.
If the phone cannot acquire the position, I would like to display an error.
How long should I wait for my callback to be called before I determine that the phone is not likely to get a GPS fix?
When a cold start is required, the receiver has to download a full set of Ephemeris data, which is broadcast from the GPS satellite over a 30 second cycle and re-transmitted every 30 seconds.
So I would say that 60-90 seconds (two or three Ephemeris cycles) would be a suitable time to wait before declaring failure.
http://www.navigadget.com/index.php/gps-knowledge/ttff-time-to-first-fix
Note that if a device requires an almanac download, the startup time can be much longer (on the order of 12.5 to 15 minutes). This is referred to as a Factory TTFF (Time to First Fix).
I might go with an increment (say 20 or 30 seconds) between notifying the user that you have failed to establish a link, and give them the option to stop trying. Keep at it until they stop you, or a set number of iterations have passes (say 5 - 10 iterations).
45-90 seconds.
For more information, see the GPS Time To First Fix article at Wikipedia.
But you can never know when the user actually has view to the satellites or not, maybe they are still inside when they start your program, so the approach suggested by Matthew Vines is much better than a constant delay.
Cellphone-specifically, I've had a Motorola phone that had a GPS receiver, but was horrendously bad at it - it could take it around 5 minutes to get a fix where my standalone Bluetooth receiver would manage in less than a minute.
Why are you declaring failure after a fixed timeout anyway? Why not, after a reasonable time has passed (say, a minute), display a message to the tune of "GPS fix still not available; but I'm still trying" with a possibility to cancel at any time if the user is fed up? What do you expect the user to do with the failure message you're proposing to give him?
We have a memory intensive processing for certain functionality and we would like to limit the number of parallel requests to this processing. We are able to configure by using "Work Managers" in WebLogic and putting a limit on the number of threads for that servlet.
For example, if we put maximim thread limit as 3, then if there are 10 parallel requests; 7 requests are in queue. There could be situations where these the requests waiting in queue could take up to 30-40 minutes to be processed. We did simple testing and the received page cannot be displayed due to timeout after 15 mins and received the message after 1 hour.
Does any one know if there is a setting in WebLogic to increase/decrease timeout and avoid page cannot be displayed?
Appreciate if any one has any thoughts around this.
Does any one know if there is a setting in WebLogic to increase/decrease timeout and avoid page cannot be displayed?
There might be something but I actually didn't check as it would be a bad advice anyway. By looking for this, you are trying to solve the wrong problem here. A browser is just not made for long-running process like the one you are describing (>30mn) even if you don't mind the user waiting (not mentioning that he could refresh the page and queue more and more jobs).
So, the right answer here is in my opinion: use asynchronism, this is the perfect use case. When the user clicks on the button, send a JMS message to a queue (or create a Quartz job) and send the user a page with a request ID telling him to come back later. When the processing is done, update the status somewhere and make the status/result available to the user. Really, the user experience will be better doing this and you'll face less problems than with a browser.
1) Use some other tool (not browser) like WGET where you can control timeout parameter (--timeout).
2) Why do you use HTTP? Use message driven beans and send message JMS to that and don't care about time outs.
Perhaps quartz can do what you need? Start a job and check in on it as you need to?