473,881 Members | 1,708 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

AJAX POST problems on Firefox

Hi all,

I am having some odd problems with AJAX on Firefox (1.5). When I use
GET as the request method everything works ok, but when I do a POST the
remote function doesn't get the parameters I am passing to it.
Everything works fine on IE 6. Here's a couple samples of what I am
doing:

// using GET
url = 'http://www.myserver.co m/cgi-bin/funct?key1=valu e1&key2=value2 '

ajaxRequest.onr eadystatechange = callback;
ajaxRequest.ope n('GET', url, true);
ajaxRequest.sen d(null);

// using POST
url = 'http://www.myserver.co m/cgi-bin/funct'
request = 'key1=value1&ke y2=value2'

ajaxRequest.onr eadystatechange = callback;
ajaxRequest.ope n('POST', url, true);
ajaxRequest.sen d(request);

Do you guys see a problem?

Thanks,
Danny

Feb 2 '06 #1
10 19183
Danny wrote:
I am having some odd problems with AJAX on Firefox (1.5). When I use
GET as the request method everything works ok, but when I do a POST the
remote function doesn't get the parameters I am passing to it.
Everything works fine on IE 6. Here's a couple samples of what I am
doing:

// using GET
url = 'http://www.myserver.co m/cgi-bin/funct?key1=valu e1&key2=value2 '
Declare all your variables using the `var' keyword always. And almost all
statements, including simple assignments, should be delimited by a trailing
semicolon in order to avoid side effects with automatic semicolon insertion
by the script engine.
ajaxRequest.onr eadystatechange = callback;
ajaxRequest.ope n('GET', url, true);
open() clears all event listeners with the XMLHttpRequest XUL object
implemented in Gecko-based browsers; probably this is also what the
original IXMLHTTPRequest interface does. Reverse the order of
those two statements.
ajaxRequest.sen d(null);

// using POST
url = 'http://www.myserver.co m/cgi-bin/funct'
request = 'key1=value1&ke y2=value2'

ajaxRequest.onr eadystatechange = callback;
ajaxRequest.ope n('POST', url, true);
Same here.
ajaxRequest.sen d(request);

Do you guys see a problem?


Yes, see above.
HTH

PointedEars
Feb 2 '06 #2
VK

Danny wrote:
Hi all,

I am having some odd problems with AJAX on Firefox (1.5). When I use
GET as the request method everything works ok, but when I do a POST the
remote function doesn't get the parameters I am passing to it.
Everything works fine on IE 6. Here's a couple samples of what I am
doing:

// using GET
url = 'http://www.myserver.co m/cgi-bin/funct?key1=valu e1&key2=value2 '

ajaxRequest.onr eadystatechange = callback;
ajaxRequest.ope n('GET', url, true);
ajaxRequest.sen d(null);

// using POST
url = 'http://www.myserver.co m/cgi-bin/funct'
request = 'key1=value1&ke y2=value2'

ajaxRequest.onr eadystatechange = callback;
ajaxRequest.ope n('POST', url, true);
ajaxRequest.sen d(request);

Do you guys see a problem?


To POST data you have to set the request header to
'application/x-www-form-urlencoded'
ajaxRequest.set RequestHeader(' Content-type',
'application/x-www-form-urlencoded');

Be aware that some older implementations of Safari and Opera are bad
with setRequestHeade r, so there you are limited by GET only. Not really
practically important (screw on them and let them finally update). Just
let you know that POST may fail for some rare visitors.

Feb 2 '06 #3
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 2/2/2006 5:14 PM:
Danny wrote:
I am having some odd problems with AJAX on Firefox (1.5). When I use
GET as the request method everything works ok, but when I do a POST the
remote function doesn't get the parameters I am passing to it.
Everything works fine on IE 6. Here's a couple samples of what I am
doing:

// using GET
url = 'http://www.myserver.co m/cgi-bin/funct?key1=valu e1&key2=value2 '
Declare all your variables using the `var' keyword always.


No. Declare all your variables using the 'var' keyword *unless* you
understand the ramifications of not doing so. In the global scope, there
is no difference in the following two script blocks:

<script type="text/javascript">
myVariable = 'This is a global variable'
</script>

<script type="text/javascript">
var myVariable = 'This is a global variable'
</script>

Note: There are no trailing semi-colons. I very seldom add them in my
own code. I usually add them to Usenet code so I don't have to listen to
arguments such as this one about adding them. The script engine will add
them where they should be and won't add them where they shouldn't be.
And almost all statements, including simple assignments, should be delimited
by a trailing semicolon in order to avoid side effects with automatic semicolon
insertion by the script engine.


Unless you know where to and where not to put them, you are safer *not*
putting them in. There was a post just yesterday with a for statement
with a trailing semicolon that changed the meaning of the code.

for (var i=0;i<someArray .length;i++);

Or close to it. And that trailing semi-colon changed the meaning of the
code.

The last time I corrected you about this I asked for an example of code
where the lack of a trailing semi-colon *breaks* the code and adding it
back caused the error to cease.

function myFunction(){;

Syntax Error!!!

--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Feb 3 '06 #4
Randy Webb wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 2/2/2006 5:14 PM:
Danny wrote:
I am having some odd problems with AJAX on Firefox (1.5). When I use
GET as the request method everything works ok, but when I do a POST the
remote function doesn't get the parameters I am passing to it.
Everything works fine on IE 6. Here's a couple samples of what I am
doing:

// using GET
url = 'http://www.myserver.co m/cgi-bin/funct?key1=valu e1&key2=value2 '
Declare all your variables using the `var' keyword always.


No. Declare all your variables using the 'var' keyword *unless* you
understand the ramifications of not doing so. In the global scope, there
is no difference in the following two script blocks:

<script type="text/javascript">
myVariable = 'This is a global variable'
</script>


Wrong. It has been proven before already that there can be an object in
the scope chain, before the global object, that is a host object. This
is the case in JScript as used in IE: if there is an HTML element with
name or ID of `myVariable' and `myVariable' has not been declared before,
this assignment results in an error everywhere in the code because this
host object implements the simple assignment operation differently than
specified in ECMAScript Edition 3 (which is nevertheless ECMAScript
compliant behavior.) Declaring this identifier as a variable identifier
avoids this runtime error because the scope chain is not used (global
declaration) or used differently (local declaration) then.

Therefore, variables should be declared _always_ (or they may be no
variables at all.)
And almost all statements, including simple assignments, should be
delimited by a trailing semicolon in order to avoid side effects with
automatic semicolon insertion by the script engine.


Unless you know where to and where not to put them, you are safer not
putting them in.


Wrong.
There was a post just yesterday with a for statement
with a trailing semicolon that changed the meaning of the code.

for (var i=0;i<someArray .length;i++);


Which part of "almost" is unclear to you?
PointedEars
Feb 3 '06 #5
Randy Webb wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 2/2/2006 5:14 PM:
Danny wrote:
I am having some odd problems with AJAX on Firefox (1.5). When I use
GET as the request method everything works ok, but when I do a POST the
remote function doesn't get the parameters I am passing to it.
Everything works fine on IE 6. Here's a couple samples of what I am
doing:

// using GET
url = 'http://www.myserver.co m/cgi-bin/funct?key1=valu e1&key2=value2 '
Declare all your variables using the `var' keyword always.


No. Declare all your variables using the 'var' keyword *unless* you
understand the ramifications of not doing so. In the global scope, there
is no difference in the following two script blocks:

<script type="text/javascript">
myVariable = 'This is a global variable'
</script>


Wrong. It has been proven before already that there can be an object in
the scope chain, before the global object, that is a host object. This
is the case in JScript as used in IE: if there is an HTML element with
name or ID of `myVariable' and `myVariable' has not been declared before,
this assignment results in an error everywhere in the code because this
host object implements the simple assignment operation differently than
specified in ECMAScript Edition 3 (which is nevertheless ECMAScript
compliant behavior.) Declaring this identifier as a variable identifier
avoids this runtime error because the scope chain is not used then for
the initialization.

Therefore, variables should be declared _always_ (or they may be no
variables at all.)
And almost all statements, including simple assignments, should be
delimited by a trailing semicolon in order to avoid side effects with
automatic semicolon insertion by the script engine.


Unless you know where to and where not to put them, you are safer not
putting them in.


Wrong.
There was a post just yesterday with a for statement
with a trailing semicolon that changed the meaning of the code.

for (var i=0;i<someArray .length;i++);


Which part of "almost" is unclear to you?
PointedEars
Feb 3 '06 #6
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 2/3/2006 8:50 AM:
Randy Webb wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 2/2/2006 5:14 PM:
Danny wrote:
I am having some odd problems with AJAX on Firefox (1.5). When I use
GET as the request method everything works ok, but when I do a POST the
remote function doesn't get the parameters I am passing to it.
Everything works fine on IE 6. Here's a couple samples of what I am
doing:

// using GET
url = 'http://www.myserver.co m/cgi-bin/funct?key1=valu e1&key2=value2 '
Declare all your variables using the `var' keyword always. No. Declare all your variables using the 'var' keyword *unless* you
understand the ramifications of not doing so. In the global scope, there
is no difference in the following two script blocks:

<script type="text/javascript">
myVariable = 'This is a global variable'
</script>


Wrong.


Wrong Thomas.

Let me quote what you ignored ok? Make sure you read it properly this time:

IN THE GLOBAL SCOPE.

Get it now? In the GLOBAL scope they are equivalent.
It has been proven before already that there can be an object in
the scope chain, before the global object, that is a host object.
Irrelevant to what I said.
This is the case in JScript as used in IE: if there is an HTML element with
name or ID of `myVariable' and `myVariable' has not been declared before,
this assignment results in an error everywhere in the code because this
host object implements the simple assignment operation differently than
specified in ECMAScript Edition 3 (which is nevertheless ECMAScript
compliant behavior.)
Yoohoo. Read what I wrote Thomas : "Unless you understand the
ramifications of not doing so".

Sidenote: I don't give a crap what ECMA says. I care what the browsers do.
Declaring this identifier as a variable identifier avoids this runtime
error because the scope chain is not used (global declaration) or used
differently (local declaration) then.
And if you are stupid enough to name your variables the same as your
ID's, then you deserve what you get. Using IE as a defense is no defense
at all.

And, please oh please name just one browser on the Web where the above
script won't create a Global Variable. Just one.

But, just in case you missed it again, let me repeat what I said one
more time:

In the GLOBAL SCOPE, there is no difference in the two script blocks.
Declare all your variables using the 'var' keyword *unless* you
understand the ramifications of not doing so.

Do you fail to understand what I wrote? You must.
Therefore, variables should be declared _always_ (or they may be no
variables at all.)


Again, you didn't understand what I wrote. Try it again.

And almost all statements, including simple assignments, should be
delimited by a trailing semicolon in order to avoid side effects with
automatic semicolon insertion by the script engine.

Unless you know where to and where not to put them, you are safer not
putting them in.


Wrong.


Once again, you are wrong Thomas.
There was a post just yesterday with a for statement
with a trailing semicolon that changed the meaning of the code.

for (var i=0;i<someArray .length;i++);


Which part of "almost" is unclear to you?


Let me repeat for you, again, what I wrote and I will endeavor to
explain it to you since you either ignored it or didn't comprehend it:

<quote>
Unless you know where to and where not to put them, you are safer not
putting them in.
</quote>

Now, you get an example that maybe will shed some light on what you are
missing.

<script type="text/javascript">
myNonVarDeclare dVariable = 0
for (var i=0;i<100;i++)
{
myNonVarDeclare dVariable++
}
alert(myNonVarD eclaredVariable )
</script>

Thats perfectly valid Script. It will do what it was designed to do.
Increment a variable. It does that. Now, someone comes along and reads
PointedEars saying "End your statements with ;" and they add semi-colons
to the ends of all the lines and get this:

<script type="text/javascript">
myNonVarDeclare dVariable = 0;
for (var i=0;i<100;i++);
{;
myNonVarDeclare dVariable++;
};
alert(myNonVarD eclaredVariable );
</script>

Now, by not understanding when to, and not to, add semi-colons the
unknowing just changed what the code does and introduced syntax errors.

So, "Unless you know where to and where not to put them, you are safer
not putting them in".

The JS Engine will parse the script block and insert them where they
belong and will not insert them where they do not belong.

When writing, it is better to be clear and concise. Your statement left
a lot of ambiguity, mine did not. Learn the difference.

Then, take your corrections like a man.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Feb 3 '06 #7
Randy Webb wrote:

[Readded previously snipped code]
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 2/3/2006 8:50 AM:
Randy Webb wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 2/2/2006 5:14 PM:
Danny wrote:
> I am having some odd problems with AJAX on Firefox (1.5). When I use
> GET as the request method everything works ok, but when I do a POST
> the remote function doesn't get the parameters I am passing to it.
> Everything works fine on IE 6. Here's a couple samples of what I am
> doing:
>
> // using GET
> url = 'http://www.myserver.co m/cgi-bin/funct?key1=valu e1&key2=value2 '
Declare all your variables using the `var' keyword always.
No. Declare all your variables using the 'var' keyword *unless* you
understand the ramifications of not doing so. In the global scope, there
is no difference in the following two script blocks:

<script type="text/javascript">
myVariable = 'This is a global variable'
</script>

<script type="text/javascript">
var myVariable = 'This is a global variable'
</script>
Wrong.


Wrong Thomas.


No, I am correct.
Let me quote what you ignored ok? Make sure you read it properly this
time:

IN THE GLOBAL SCOPE.

Get it now? In the GLOBAL scope they are equivalent.
No, they are _not_, in /any/ scope. In the first case the scope chain is
used; in the second case it is not.
It has been proven before already that there can be an object in
the scope chain, before the global object, that is a host object.


Irrelevant to what I said.


It is very relevant to what you said. You can seldom know, with Closed
Source you can never know, the inner workings of the implementation used,
including the scope chain. It is error-prone and eventually incompetent
to ignore that.
This is the case in JScript as used in IE: if there is an HTML element
with name or ID of `myVariable' and `myVariable' has not been declared
before, this assignment results in an error everywhere in the code
because this host object implements the simple assignment operation
differently than specified in ECMAScript Edition 3 (which is nevertheless
ECMAScript compliant behavior.)


Yoohoo. Read what I wrote Thomas : "Unless you understand the
ramifications of not doing so".


You yourself did not understand the ramifications of doing so (yet?).
Sidenote: I don't give a crap what ECMA says.
Then you are a fool because you are dealing with conforming implementations
of ECMAScript (ECMA-262, ISO/IEC 16262). Not only because I (and a
considerable number of other participants of this newsgroup) say so, but
because the creators of the respective script engines themselves say so.
I care what the browsers do.


Then read the previous discussion on the subject as I already suggested. It
contains an example that _breaks_ in IE if the identifier is not a declared
variable. It does _not_ break if it is.

BTW: You replied to a posting canceled (on Google Groups) and superseded
with news:20******** ********@Pointe dEars.de already.
PointedEars
Feb 3 '06 #8
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 2/3/2006 11:54 AM:
Randy Webb wrote:

[Readded previously snipped code]
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 2/3/2006 8:50 AM:
Randy Webb wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 2/2/2006 5:14 PM:
> Danny wrote:
>> I am having some odd problems with AJAX on Firefox (1.5). When I use
>> GET as the request method everything works ok, but when I do a POST
>> the remote function doesn't get the parameters I am passing to it.
>> Everything works fine on IE 6. Here's a couple samples of what I am
>> doing:
>>
>> // using GET
>> url = 'http://www.myserver.co m/cgi-bin/funct?key1=valu e1&key2=value2 '
> Declare all your variables using the `var' keyword always.
No. Declare all your variables using the 'var' keyword *unless* you
understand the ramifications of not doing so. In the global scope, there
is no difference in the following two script blocks:

<script type="text/javascript">
myVariable = 'This is a global variable'
</script>

<script type="text/javascript">
var myVariable = 'This is a global variable'
</script>
Wrong. Wrong Thomas.


No, I am correct.


That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. Your opinion is based
on ignoring *all* of what I wrote. But, that is your choice. Should
people use the var keyword? Sure. Can they do without it? Yes, but, only
if they understand the ramifications of not using it. The ramifications
part is what you are ignoring.

Let me quote what you ignored ok? Make sure you read it properly this
time:

IN THE GLOBAL SCOPE.

Get it now? In the GLOBAL scope they are equivalent.
No, they are _not_, in /any/ scope. In the first case the scope chain is
used; in the second case it is not.


You still didn't get it. If both of those script blocks are executed in
the global scope then they are both global variables. Show me some code
that shows otherwise though.
It has been proven before already that there can be an object in
the scope chain, before the global object, that is a host object.

Irrelevant to what I said.


It is very relevant to what you said.


No it's not. If you understand the ramifications, and the behavior you
get is what you are after, then you can do what you want. If you don't
understand, then take the safe path and use the var keyword.
You can seldom know, with Closed
Source you can never know, the inner workings of the implementation used,
including the scope chain. It is error-prone and eventually incompetent
to ignore that.
Again, only if you don't understand the ramifications of not using the
var keyword.

If I repeat that enough, will you finally get it?

This is the case in JScript as used in IE: if there is an HTML element
with name or ID of `myVariable' and `myVariable' has not been declared
before, this assignment results in an error everywhere in the code
because this host object implements the simple assignment operation
differently than specified in ECMAScript Edition 3 (which is nevertheless
ECMAScript compliant behavior.)

Yoohoo. Read what I wrote Thomas : "Unless you understand the
ramifications of not doing so".


You yourself did not understand the ramifications of doing so (yet?).


You underestimate my understanding. I am well aware of what the
ramifications are.
Sidenote: I don't give a crap what ECMA says.


Then you are a fool because you are dealing with conforming implementations
of ECMAScript (ECMA-262, ISO/IEC 16262).


I am a fool for not caring what a document says but rather I worry more
about what the browsers do? I can write cross-browser scripts and never
even know what ECMA says. You can not write cross-browser scripts based
solely on knowing what ECMA says. You *must* know the browser behavior.
And given a choice between MSDN and the Gecko docs versus ECMA's
documentation, you can have ECMA.

And to prove that point, it only takes using toFixed in IE and you will
soon find out that it's more important to know what the browser is going
to do than what ECMA says it should do because IE5.0 in its default
install configuration will fail with toFixed because its buggy.
Not only because I (and a considerable number of other participants of
this newsgroup) say so, but because the creators of the respective script
engines themselves say so.
ECMA is an attempt to standardize what was already in place. Not the
other way around.

Theory: ECMA should be all you need to know.
Reality: ECMA doesn't mean a hill of beans.

If it did, then the language would be ECMAScript and not J(ava)script.

I care what the browsers do.


Then read the previous discussion on the subject as I already suggested. It
contains an example that _breaks_ in IE if the identifier is not a declared
variable. It does _not_ break if it is.


And I already said that if you are stupid enough to fall into that trap
then you deserve what you get. That is one of the ramifications I was
referring to that you keep ignoring.

But, which is it? Are you going to stand behind ECMA or the browser's
behavior? You can't have it both ways.
BTW: You replied to a posting canceled (on Google Groups) and superseded
with news:20******** ********@Pointe dEars.de already.


BTW: It was not cancelled or I wouldn't have seen it. And you are
assuming that just because you went to Google and asked for the message
to be cancelled that it did indeed get cancelled - it didn't.

But, since you mention the double post, you should fix your newsreader -
it double posts quite a bit.

What? No more about the semi-colons?
--
Randy
comp.lang.javas cript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Feb 5 '06 #9
JRS: In article <w5************ *************** ***@comcast.com >, dated
Sun, 5 Feb 2006 08:48:24 remote, seen in news:comp.lang. javascript,
Randy Webb <Hi************ @aol.com> posted :

But, since you mention the double post, you should fix your newsreader -
it double posts quite a bit.


That may be because he uses supersedes, presumably in an endeavour to
cover up careless hasty posting.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME ©
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Feb 6 '06 #10

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

6
2603
by: Bart van Deenen | last post by:
Hi All I'm happily creating an Ajaxified web-app. I use Prototype for encapsulating xml http requests, with method "post". On the backend, I use PHP, and the replies are eval'd by Javascript. I do not use XML for data encapsulation. The only thing that is off nominal is that my Firefox 1.07 (Mac OS-X) and 1.06 (Linux) have "Waiting for ..." continuously in the status bar. I know from server debugging and packet sniffing that there is...
5
20092
by: dougwig | last post by:
I'm trying to handle the scenario where a user's session times out and and their ajax request triggers a redirection by the webserver (302 error?). I'm using Prototype 1.4 and the my works great with Firefox,but with IE6 the onFailure never gets called and the request never completes. My code: var ajaxReq = new Ajax.Request( url, {method: 'post', parameters:
5
8136
by: Danny R | last post by:
I have the following javascript which works in either IE or Firefox but not on both. When I set the code to http_request.open('POST', url, true) - Works in IE only http_request.open('GET', url, true) - Works in Firefox only; Does not refresh in IE. How do I resolve this?
3
2995
by: noballack | last post by:
I've got a problem, I'm working with Ajax in a web with a form with a list of checkbox added to the form via an Ajax.Updater method. These added checkboxs are not been sended by the form if I use Firefox or Safari. My source code is something like that: <script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.my_web_page.com//js/prototype-1.4.0.js"></script> <script> function showMoreOptions( url, pars, div_id ){ if...
4
7715
by: ext237 | last post by:
Simple ajax call seems to have some issues in Firefox. The "onComplete:" is called BEFORE the response is returned by the call. Is there a coding issue or a work around? var ajax = new Ajax.Request( url, {method: 'post', parameters: params, onComplete: evalInfo }); function evalInfo( request ) { // do stuff with request
8
3148
by: cyqotiq | last post by:
First, let me state that this is not necessarily a Firefox problem, as I haven't fully tested in IE just yet. Second, let me state that this is not the typical "getElementById not working Firefox" post. Third, there are pieces of this code that I am not at liberty to display, change, discuss, or re-implement. As far as this question is concerned, this means that (1) I cannot use 3rd party libraries, which is why I've implemented my own...
3
17705
by: George | last post by:
I am doing an AJAX call using JQuery on my page to which returns JSON objects and everything works fine. Now I decided to use ashx handler instead of and simply write JSON out. Then my problems begun. So here is JQuery call $.ajax({ type: 'POST', url: url,
1
4617
by: javediq143 | last post by:
Hi All, This is my first post in this forum. I'm developing a CMS for my latest website. This CMS is also in PhP & MySQL. I'm done with the ADD section where the Admin can INSERT new records in Database but I'm stuck in the EDIT. I'm getting 2 problems over here. Below is the description: 1)The FIRST page will list all the records from the table which Admin can EDIT with CHECKBOX for each record to select. He can select one or more than one...
7
4053
by: mike57 | last post by:
The minimal AJAX script below works in Firefox, but not in IE, Opera, or Chrome. I could use some suggestions or referrals to resources that will help me get the script working in other browsers. Before there are six characters entered in the CAPTCHA code field, the 'Send' button is supposed to be disabled. When there are at least six characters in the CAPTCHA code field, the script attempts to verify the CAPTCHA w/AJAX. If it verifies, it...
0
9928
marktang
by: marktang | last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main usage, and What is the difference between ONU and Router. Let’s take a closer look ! Part I. Meaning of...
0
11100
Oralloy
by: Oralloy | last post by:
Hello folks, I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>". The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed. This is as boiled down as I can make it. Here is my compilation command: g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp Here is the code in...
0
10718
jinu1996
by: jinu1996 | last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth. The Art of Business Website Design Your website is...
0
9554
agi2029
by: agi2029 | last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own.... Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
0
7110
by: conductexam | last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one. At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image. Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
0
5781
by: TSSRALBI | last post by:
Hello I'm a network technician in training and I need your help. I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs. The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols. I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
0
5977
by: adsilva | last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
1
4597
by: 6302768590 | last post by:
Hai team i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated we have to send another system
3
3225
bsmnconsultancy
by: bsmnconsultancy | last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.