I'm using CocoaAsyncSocket for an iOS project. I'm trying to read VarInts through an asynchronous interface. The problem is unlike something else like a String, where I can prefix a length, I don't know the length of a varint beforehand. It needs to be processed one byte at a time, but since each read operation is asynchronous other read calls may have been queued in between.
I considered reading into a buffer then processing it, say reading 5 bytes (the max length for a varint-32), and pushing extra bytes back, but that may hang unnecessarily if the varint is only 4 bytes and I'm waiting for a 5th byte to be available.
How can I do this? Also, I cannot change the protocol on the other end, to use fixed size ints.
Here's a snippet of code as Josh requested
- (void)readByte:(void (^)(int8_t))onComplete {
NSUInteger size = 1;
int32_t tag = OSAtomicAdd32(1, &_nextTag);
dispatch_async(self.dispatchQueue, ^{
[self.onCompleteHandlers setObject:(^void (NSData* data) {
int8_t x = 0;
[data getBytes:&x length:size];
onComplete(x);
}) forKey:[NSNumber numberWithInteger:((NSInteger) tag)]];
[self.socket readDataToLength:size withTimeout:-1 tag:tag];
});
}
A callback is saved in a dictionary, which is used in the delegate method socket: didReadData: withTag.
Suppose I'm reading a VarInt byte by byte:
execute read first byte for varint
don't know if we need to read another byte for a varint or not; that depends on the result of the first read
(possible) read another byte for something else
read second byte for varint, but now it's actually the 3rd byte being read
I can imagine using a flag to indicate whether or not I'm in a multipart-read, and a queue to hold reads that should be executed after the multipart-read, and I've started writing it but it's quite messy. Just wondering if there is a standard/recommended/better way to approach this problem.
in short there are 4 ways to know how much to read from a socket...
read some format that you can infer the length from like the Content-Length header... only works if the whole request can be put together before the body is sent.
read until some pattern: like \r\n\r\n at the end of the headers
read until some timeout... after you get no bytes after n seconds you flush the buffers and close the connection.
read until the server closes the connection... actually used to be pretty common.
these each have problems and I would probably lean in your case from using some existing protocol.
of course there is overhead to doing it that way, and you may find that you don't want to use any of that application level stuff and your requests may be like:
client>"doMath(2+5)\0"
server>"(7)\0"
but it is hard to answer your general question specifically.
edit:
So I looked into the varint base-128 issue a little more and I think really only a timeout or the server closing the connection will work, if you are writing these right at the TCP level which is horrible...
Related
I'm currently using Erlang for a big project but i have a question regarding a proper proceeding.
I receive bytes over a tcp socket. The bytes are according to a fixed protocol, the sender is a pyton client. The python client uses class inheritance to create bytes from the objects.
Now i would like to (in Erlang) take the bytes and convert these to their equivelant messages, they all have a common message header.
How can i do this as generic as possible in Erlang?
Kind Regards,
Me
Pattern matching/binary header consumption using Erlang's binary syntax. But you will need to know either exactly what bytes or bits your are expecting to receive, or the field sizes in bytes or bits.
For example, let's say that you are expecting a string of bytes that will either begin with the equivalent of the ASCII strings "PUSH" or "PULL", followed by some other data you will place somewhere. You can create a function head that matches those, and captures the rest to pass on to a function that does "push()" or "pull()" based on the byte header:
operation_type(<<"PUSH", Rest/binary>>) -> push(Rest);
operation_type(<<"PULL", Rest/binary>>) -> pull(Rest).
The bytes after the first four will now be in Rest, leaving you free to interpret whatever subsequent headers or data remain in turn. You could also match on the whole binary:
operation_type(Bin = <<"PUSH", _/binary>>) -> push(Bin);
operation_type(Bin = <<"PULL", _/binary>>) -> pull(Bin).
In this case the "_" variable works like it always does -- you're just checking for the lead, essentially peeking the buffer and passing the whole thing on based on the initial contents.
You could also skip around in it. Say you knew you were going to receive a binary with 4 bytes of fluff at the front, 6 bytes of type data, and then the rest you want to pass on:
filter_thingy(<<_:4/binary, Type:6/binary, Rest/binary>>) ->
% Do stuff with Rest based on Type...
It becomes very natural to split binaries in function headers (whether the data equates to character strings or not), letting the "Rest" fall through to appropriate functions as you go along. If you are receiving Python pickle data or something similar, you would want to write the parsing routine in a recursive way, so that the conclusion of each data type returns you to the top to determine the next type, with an accumulated tree that represents the data read so far.
I only covered 8-bit bytes above, but there is also a pure bitstring syntax, which lets you go as far into the weeds with bits and bytes as you need with the same ease of syntax. Matching is a real lifesaver here.
Hopefully this informed more than confused. Binary syntax in Erlang makes this the most pleasant binary parsing environment in a general programming language I've yet encountered.
http://www.erlang.org/doc/programming_examples/bit_syntax.html
I have a GSM module hooked up to PIC18F87J11 and they communicate just fine . I can send an AT command from the Microcontroller and read the response back. However, I have to know how many characters are in the response so I can have the PIC wait for that many characters. But if an error occurs, the response length might change. What is the best way to handle such scenario?
For Example:
AT+CMGF=1
Will result in the following response.
\r\nOK\r\n
So I have to tell the PIC to wait for 6 characters. However, if there response was an error message. It would be something like this.
\r\nERROR\r\n
And if I already told the PIC to wait for only 6 characters then it will mess out the rest of characters, as a result they might appear on the next time I tell the PIC to read the response of a new AT command.
What is the best way to find the end of the line automatically and handle any error messages?
Thanks!
In a single line
There is no single best way, only trade-offs.
In detail
The problem can be divided in two related subproblems.
1. Receiving messages of arbitrary finite length
The trade-offs:
available memory vs implementation complexity;
bandwidth overhead vs implementation complexity.
In the simplest case, the amount of available RAM is not restricted. We just use a buffer wide enough to hold the longest possible message and keep receiving the messages bytewise. Then, we have to determine somehow that a complete message has been received and can be passed to further processing. That essentially means analyzing the received data.
2. Parsing the received messages
Analyzing the data in search of its syntactic structure is parsing by definition. And that is where the subtasks are related. Parsing in general is a very complex topic, dealing with it is expensive, both in computational and laboriousness senses. It's often possible to reduce the costs if we limit the genericity of the data: the simpler the data structure, the easier to parse it. And that limitation is called "transport layer protocol".
Thus, we have to read the data to parse it, and parse the data to read it. This kind of interlocked problems is generally solved with coroutines.
In your case we have to deal with the AT protocol. It is old and it is human-oriented by design. That's bad news, because parsing it correctly can be challenging despite how simple it can look sometimes. It has some terribly inconvenient features, such as '+++' escape timing!
Things become worse when you're short of memory. In such situation we can't defer parsing until the end of the message, because it very well might not even fit in the available RAM -- we have to parse it chunkwise.
...And we are not even close to opening the TCP connections or making calls! And you'll meet some unexpected troubles there as well, such as these dreaded "unsolicited result codes". The matter is wide enough for a whole book. Please have a look at least here:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Serial_Programming/Modems_and_AT_Commands. The wikibook discloses many more problems with the Hayes protocol, and describes some approaches to solve them.
Let's break the problem down into some layers of abstraction.
At the top layer is your application. The application layer deals with the response message as a whole and understands the meaning of a message. It shouldn't be mired down with details such as how many characters it should expect to receive.
The next layer is responsible from framing a message from a stream of characters. Framing is extracting the message from a stream by identifying the beginning and end of a message.
The bottom layer is responsible for reading individual characters from the port.
Your application could call a function such as GetResponse(), which implements the framing layer. And GetResponse() could call GetChar(), which implements the bottom layer. It sounds like you've got the bottom layer under control and your question is about the framing layer.
A good pattern for framing a stream of characters into a message is to use a state machine. In your case the state machine includes states such as BEGIN_DELIM, MESSAGE_BODY, and END_DELIM. For more complex serial protocols other states might include MESSAGE_HEADER and MESSAGE_CHECKSUM, for example.
Here is some very basic code to give you an idea of how to implement the state machine in GetResponse(). You should add various types of error checking to prevent a buffer overflow and to handle dropped characters and such.
void GetResponse(char *message_buffer)
{
unsigned int state = BEGIN_DELIM1;
bool is_message_complete = false;
while(!is_message_complete)
{
char c = GetChar();
switch(state)
{
case BEGIN_DELIM1:
if (c = '\r')
state = BEGIN_DELIM2;
break;
case BEGIN_DELIM2:
if (c = '\n')
state = MESSAGE_BODY:
break;
case MESSAGE_BODY:
if (c = '\r')
state = END_DELIM;
else
*message_buffer++ = c;
break;
case END_DELIM:
if (c = '\n')
is_message_complete = true;
break;
}
}
}
I have a streamed WCF service. In one operation, I receive a file, for upload purposes.
If I try to do something like this
request.FileContent.Length
Then I receive an OperationNotSupported exception. That's Ok.
But how could I get the file size without actually transfering it entirely?
I know I could send this information along with the call, as a Header, but I don't want to go this way.
If WCF is able to limit the request size trough maxReceiveMessageSize. How can I use the same information to check the message/stream size?
In general, you can't know the size of a byte stream without reading it all and counting the bytes, unless there is data at the start of the stream which tells you how many bytes there are in the entire stream, or some other out-of-band way to communicate the length of the stream, such as in the WCF message headers. You will have to go with the Header approach if you want to know the size without reading the stream.
The WCF maxReceiveMessageSize works by counting the bytes as they are received and throwing an exception if the limit is exceeded... it doesn't know the stream length either, and can't pre-emptively prevent the message being received without first reading the maximum allowed number of bytes.
But how could I get the file size without actually transfering it entirely? I know I could send this information along with the call, as a Header, but I don't want to go this way.
You're going to have to send the size of the byte stream down the pipe first there is no other way. (if there was some inbuilt way thats all it would be doing anyway)
It doesn't add much complexity to prepend it to the stream:
var bytes = File.ReadAllBytes("somefile.txt");
stream.Write(BitConverter.GetBytes((Int32)bytes.Length), 0, 4);
stream.Write(bytes, 0, bytes.Length);
and then on the other side when reading the stream:
byte[] fileLengthBytes =new byte[4];
stream.Read(fileLengthBytes, 0, 4);
int length = BitConverter.ToInt32(fileLengthBytes, 0);
//you know the size of the file now, log it or show the user
var fileBytes = new byte[length];
stream.Read(fileBytes, 0, fileBytes.Length);
this is only an example - you may not want to create a byte[] buffer if your stream is large.
I'm executing 4 startup commands and also expecting to receive 4 responses. The server is already implemented and another dev who is developing android, is able to receive those 4 separate responses, however, I'm getting 2 good responses (separate) and then 3rd and 4th responses come as one response. I'v placed NSLog of NSData result in completeCurrentRead, and it outputs me merged packet "0106000000000b0600000000" instead of separate packets "010600000000" and "0b0600000000". I'v also tested those 3rd and 4th commands separatedly (only one at a time) and everything is OK with the server, it sends them separately, however there occurs merge (with 3rd and 4th) if all four commands are executed in a line. Any ideas?
UPDATE: I think I'v traced to the problem roots. There's a call that reads packet data from a stream in doBytesAvailable method:
CFIndex result = [self readIntoBuffer:subBuffer maxLength:bytesToRead];
And in readIntoBuffer:maxLength, there's a call (length == 256) :
return CFReadStreamRead(theReadStream, (UInt8 *)buffer, length);
So, CFReadStreamRead returns incorrect length of packet - it return length of 12 (instead of 6), and also grabs merged data. Hm, what might causing CFReadStreamRead to read two packets into one, instead of reading them separately...
UPDATE2: I'm using onSocket:didReadData:withTag: delegate method and expecting to receive response data with the tag of request I performed. I have realized recently, streams are streams, not packets but how I can solve that? Server responses does not have terminating chars at start and end of response, just response size, that comes as 2 - 5 bytes. I can cut the first part of response (first packet) and ignore the second part but how AsyncSocket will make another callback with the second part of the response (second packet)? If I will cut only the first parts and ignore the second then IMHO the second "packet" will be lost...
How to cut the first part of response and tell AsyncSocket to make another callback with tag and the second part of response as separate callback?
UPDATE3: In onSocket:didReadData:withTag:, I manually cut merged response, handle the first part (first packet) and then at the end, throwing a call to onSocket:didReadData:withTag: again:
if (isMergedPacket) {
...
[self onSocket:sock didReadData:restPartOfTheResponse withTag:myCommandTag];
}
However, it looks like AsyncSocket itself pairs every request packet with its response packet (via AsyncReadPacket class) using tags. So, my manual cutting works, but AsyncSocket does not know that I already handled both packets, and it still tries to read the second packet. So, I'm getting sock:shouldTimeoutReadWithTag:... callback which is called when a read operation has reached its timeout without completing.
Found solution. It's not necessary to change and dig into AsyncSocket. You just need to define the length of each response - how much bytes are you interested in reading and getting your callback. More info you can on other post here
How to publish a stream using librtmp library?
I read the librtmp man page and for publishing , RTMP_Write() is used.
I am doing like this.
//Code
//Init RTMP code
RTMP *r;
char uri[]="rtmp://localhost:1935/live/desktop";
r= RTMP_Alloc();
RTMP_Init(r);
RTMP_SetupURL(r, (char*)uri);
RTMP_EnableWrite(r);
RTMP_Connect(r, NULL);
RTMP_ConnectStream(r,0);
Then to respond to ping/other messages from server, I am using a thread to respond like following:
//Thread
While (ThreadIsRunning && RTMP_IsConnected(r) && RTMP_ReadPacket(r, &packet))
{
if (RTMPPacket_IsReady(&packet))
{
if (!packet.m_nBodySize)
continue;
RTMP_ClientPacket(r, &packet); //This takes care of handling ping/other messages
RTMPPacket_Free(&packet);
}
}
After this I am stuck at how to use RTMP_Write() to publish a file to Wowza media server?
In my own experience, streaming video data to an RTMP server is actually pretty simple on the librtmp side. The tricky part is to correctly packetize video/audio data and read it at the correct rate.
Assuming you are using FLV video files, as long as you can correctly isolate each tag in the file and send each one using one RTMP_Write call, you don't even need to handle incoming packets.
The tricky part is to understand how FLV files are made.
The official specification is available here: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/f4v.html
First, there's a header, that is made of 9 bytes. This header must not be sent to the server, but only read through in order to make sure the file is really FLV.
Then there is a stream of tags. Each tag has a 11 bytes header that contains the tag type (video/audio/metadata), the body length, and the tag's timestamp, among other things.
The tag header can be described using this structure:
typedef struct __flv_tag {
uint8 type;
uint24_be body_length; /* in bytes, total tag size minus 11 */
uint24_be timestamp; /* milli-seconds */
uint8 timestamp_extended; /* timestamp extension */
uint24_be stream_id; /* reserved, must be "\0\0\0" */
/* body comes next */
} flv_tag;
The body length and timestamp are presented as 24-bit big endian integers, with a supplementary byte to extend the timestamp to 32 bits if necessary (that's approximatively around the 4 hours mark).
Once you have read the tag header, you can read the body itself as you now know its length (body_length).
After that there is a 32-bit big endian integer value that contains the complete length of the tag (11 bytes + body_length).
You must write the tag header + body + previous tag size in one RTMP_Write call (else it won't play).
Also, be careful to send packets at the nominal frame rate of the video, else playback will suffer greatly.
I have written a complete FLV file demuxer as part of my GPL project FLVmeta that you can use as reference.
In fact, RTMP_Write() seems to require that you already have the RTMP packet formed in buf.
RTMPPacket *pkt = &r->m_write;
...
pkt->m_packetType = *buf++;
So, you cannot just push the flv data there - you need to separate it to packets first.
There is a nice function, RTMP_ReadPacket(), but it reads from the network socket.
I have the same problem as you, hope to have a solution soon.
Edit:
There are certain bugs in RTMP_Write(). I've made a patch and now it works. I'm going to publish that.