poi page 3 - Dave's Blog

Elaborating on a previous brief post on the topic of Web Worker initialization race conditions, there's two important points to avoid a race condition when setting up a Worker:

1. The parent starts the communication posting to the worker.
2. The worker sets up its message handler in its first synchronous block of execution.

For example the following has no race becaues the spec guarentees that messages posted to a worker during its first synchronous block of execution will be queued and handled after that block. So the worker gets a chance to setup its onmessage handler. No race:

'parent.js':
   var worker = new Worker();
   worker.postMessage("initialize");

'worker.js':
   onmessage = function(e) {
      // ...
   }

The following has a race because there's no guarentee that the parent's onmessage handler is setup before the worker executes postMessage. Race (violates 1):

'parent.js':
   var worker = new Worker();
   worker.onmessage = function(e) {
      // ...
   };

'worker.js':
   postMessage("initialize");

The following has a race because the worker has no onmessage handler set in its first synchronous execution block and so the parent's postMessage may be sent before the worker sets its onmessage handler. Race (violates 2):

'parent.js':
   var worker = new Worker();
   worker.postMessage("initialize");

'worker.js':
   setTimeout(
      function() {
         onmessage = function(e) {
            // ...
         }
      },
      0);

These are the prime HTTP status codes:

• 101 Switching Protocols
• 103 Checkpoint
• 307 Temporary Redirect
• 401 Unauthorized
• 409 Conflict
• 431 Request Header Fields Too Large
• 449 Retry With
• 499 Client Closed Request
• 503 Service Unavailable
• 509 Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
• 599 Network connect timeout error

Most existing DRM attempts to only allow the user to access the DRM'ed content with particular applications or with particular credentials so that if the file is shared it won't be useful to others. A better solution is to encode any of the user's horrible secrets into unique versions of the DRM'ed content so that the user won't want to share it. Entangle the users and the content provider's secrets together in one document and accordingly their interests. I call this Blackmail DRM. For an implementation it is important to point out that the user's horrible secret doesn't need to be verified as accurate, but merely verified as believable.

Apparently I need to get these blog posts written faster because only recently I read about Social DRM which is a light weight version of my idea but with a misleading name. Instead of horrible secrets, they say they'll use personal information like the user's name in the DRM'ed content. More of my thoughts stolen and before I even had a chance to think of it first!

A bug came up the other day involving markup containing <input type="image" src="http://example.com/.... I knew that "image" was a valid input type but it wasn't until that moment that I realized I didn't know what it did. Looking it up I found that it displays the specified image and when the user clicks on the image, the form is submitted with an additional two name value pairs: the x and y positions of the point at which the user clicked the image.

Take for example the following HTML:

<form action="http://example.com/">
<input type="image" name="foo" src="http://deletethis.net/dave/images/davebefore.jpg">
</form>

If the user clicks on the image, the browser will submit the form with a URI like the following:http://example.com/?foo.x=145&foo.y=124.

This seemed like an incredibly specific feature to be built directly into the language when this could instead be done with javascript. I looked a bit further and saw that its been in HTML since at least HTML2, which of course makes much more sense. Javascript barely existed at that point and sending off the user's click location in a form may have been the only way to do something interesting with that action.

The following code works fine. I have a ccomptr named resolvedUri and I want to update its hostname so I do the following:

        CreateIUriBuilder(resolvedUri, 0, 0, &builder);
        builder->SetHost(host);
        builder->CreateUri(0xFFFFFFFF, 0, 0, &resolvedUri);

But the following similar looking code has a bug:

    ResolveHost(resolvedUri, &resolvedUri);

The issue is that doing &resolvedUri gets the address of the pointer but also clears out the pointer due to the definition of my smart pointer class:

    operator T**()  
    {  
        T *ptrValue = mPtrValue;
        mPtrValue->Release();
        mPtrValue = NULL;
        return &ptrValue;
    }

In C++ there’s no guarantee about the order in which parameters for a function or method are evaluated. In the case above, &resolvedUri clears out the ccomptr before evaluating resolvedUri.Get() and so ResolveHostAlias gets a nullptr.

An interesting and related thread on stack overflow on undefined behavior in C++.

​I always have trouble remembering where the opt goes in SAL in the __deref_out case. The mnemonic is pretty simple: the _opt at the start of the SAL is for the pointer value at the start of the function. And the _opt at the end of the SAL is for the dereferenced pointer value at the end of the function.

SAL	foo == nullptr allowed at function start?	*foo == nullptr allowed at function end?
__deref_out void **foo	No	No
__deref_opt_out void **foo	Yes	No
__deref_out_opt void **foo	No	Yes
__deref_opt_out_opt void **foo	Yes	Yes

.

Max Tannone does awesome remix albums:

• Jaydiohead - Radiohead & Jay-Z mashup. Listen:
  Jaydiohead - 06 - Dirt Off Your Android by Max Tannone


• Selene - Richard Rich & beats over the Moon soundtrack. Listen:
  Selene - 01 - You Are Here by Max Tannone


• Double Check Your Head - Beastie Boys albums mixed together. Listen:
  Beastie Boys - 02 - Pass The Gratitude by Max Tannone
  

Also, the movie Moon is really good on a variety of points. Sam Rockwell and the voice of Kevin Spacey! Its available on Netflix Watch Instantly so you have no excuse!

I previously described my desire to hook my Outlook calendar up to my Google calendar. I just found out that I can do this and the reverse as both support publishing calendars to the Internet. The following are how I set this up under Outlook 2010 and Google Calendar:

In Outlook, I go to the calendar view, right click on my calendar and select "Share Publish to Office.com". At this point I can change the permissions to allow anonymous Internet access, and under Detail change between 'Full details' (full calendar), 'Limited details' (subject lines & availability only), 'Availability only'. Availability only is almost just what I want -- I'd also like to include location but availability only is good enough. After hitting OK here I get a 'Do you want to send an invitation...' dialog box. I hit 'Yes' and I can copy the webcals:// URL out of the email window that opens up. Next, to add it to my Google calendar, I open http://www.google.com/calendar/, and under 'Other calendars', I select 'Add Add by URL', paste in that webcals:// URL but change the 'webcals' at the start to 'https'.

In Google Calendar, I can click on my calendar name under 'My calendars', select 'Calendar settings', and on the new page, look under 'Calendar Address', click the ICAL icon, and copy the URL in the new dialog. Now back in Outlook I go to the Calendar view, right click on 'My Calendars', and select 'Add Calendar From Internet...'. In the new dialog that pops up I paste in the URL from Google Calendar.

In this fashion I can share public calendar data between my personal and work calendars.