PlanetSquires Forums

Support Forums => General Board => Topic started by: Martin Francom on November 04, 2011, 08:09:21 PM

Title: Socket Tools 7.1 Trial Version
Post by: Martin Francom on November 04, 2011, 08:09:21 PM
I downloaded SocketTools 7.1 Trial version. I can't figure out how to use it with PowerBasic10. There is a couple of help files. But they don't help much. There are no PowerBasic example programs.

I am rather disappoint that Catalyst doesn't supply some example programs.

Would anyone here have a sample FF35/PB10 program that would demostrate how to FTP a file using SocketTools 7.1 with FF35/PB10 ?

The link to the Trial version is:
    http://www.catalyst.com/products/filetransfer/index.html


Title: Re: Socket Tools 7.1 Trial Version
Post by: Douglas McDonald on November 05, 2011, 06:31:39 PM
Marty,

There are some good FTP examples on the PB forum. They seem to work well so there is really no need to buy a third party tool. That said I've used them in PB9 but not in PB10 but its pretty standard stuff so I'm pretty sure it works fine. If you want I can post some code on Monday or sooner if I have it on this PC at home.

BTW I've tried socket tools before and I never could get it to work very well in any fashion with PB. I'm sure it's because I just don't understand the VB6 to PB stuff. It works great with VB6. I found it much simpler to just modify some great samples on the PB forum (yes I credit them in my code as the code coming from them) for what its worth

Doug
Title: Re: Socket Tools 7.1 Trial Version
Post by: Dubravko Tuckoric on November 05, 2011, 08:20:01 PM
Douglas,
I do not agree with you. I have worked with Socket tools library edition 6.0 and 6.1 using PB9.x. I have used samples in PB example folder, and after that have create some advanced transfers (including FTP ) and all these worked perfectly.  Samples worked on first try !!!
Title: Re: Socket Tools 7.1 Trial Version
Post by: Michael Stefanik on November 05, 2011, 11:14:00 PM
Quote from: Douglas McDonald on November 05, 2011, 06:31:39 PM
BTW I've tried socket tools before and I never could get it to work very well in any fashion with PB. I'm sure it's because I just don't understand the VB6 to PB stuff. It works great with VB6. I found it much simpler to just modify some great samples on the PB forum (yes I credit them in my code as the code coming from them) for what its worth

Out of curiousity, what edition of SocketTools were you working with? Because you're mentioning VB6, I'm guessing the ActiveX controls, and that's not what we really recommend that you use for PowerBASIC. The DLLs in the Library Edition work pretty much the same as you'd expect with the Windows API and deal with all the same familiar stuff (handles to sessions, etc.) It's much easier to work with, even with the improved COM support in the later versions of PB.

As for the FTP examples posted on the forums, they're fine for what they are, but they're also fairly limited in terms of functionality. Our FTP API has been around for a long time, has been tested on a LOT of different servers and supports standard FTP, SFTP (FTP+SSH) and FTPS (FTP+SSL), all with the same interface. And to my knowledge, none of the examples posted on the PB forums supports SFTP at all.

If you want the learning experience, and understand how the protocol works, then using those examples are great. If you're working on a commercial program and want the part of your code that deals with file transfers to "just work" and don't want to get into the guts of how FTP/FTPS/SFTP does its thing, then you're far better off buying a commerical component/library to do the job.
Title: Re: Socket Tools 7.1 Trial Version
Post by: Douglas McDonald on November 07, 2011, 12:59:14 PM
well I agree that if you need every possible function and protocol then buying a package is the best way to go. I'm just looking at it from the point of view of a simple FTP transfer such as sending some files once a week to an ftp site.
I was using the trial version and that was a few years ago. I'm sure it has improved since then.

Doug