04-08-2009 09:01 AM
Hi i have been recently investigating the various network connection methods.
I have found the following post extremely helpful.
I understand that the mechanism used to establish a connection should follow the following format:
I have since applied to the alliance program and have recently received a reply.
I was not expecting the fee to be as large as it is since all i really need is a few words, deviceside=bsb-b or whatever it is
I know there are various benefits of being part of the alliance but all im really interested in is the BIS-B api.
So my question is:
How acceptable would it be, not to include BIS-B in network config heuristics?
Would this cover most users?
i.e. MDS->WAP2.0->Direct TCP->WAP1.0
All advice greatly appreciated!
Solved! Go to Solution.
04-08-2009 09:11 AM
04-08-2009 10:11 AM
I agree with Simon, though my direct experience is much more restrictive, we are currently only in the UK market. That is good for us, because we can figure out from the Service Books which carrier and then supply the correct direct TCP parameters, so effectively in the UK we have direct TCP with no configuration needed.
I believe that some people have gone to this sort of trouble and collected all the carrier connections for WAP 1, so that they can use this directly - I saw a reference to this in another forum, which suggested Google maps did this at one stage.
Re WAP 2.0, I have had an interesting experience with it and Vodafone. If you want to read the gory detail, look here:
04-08-2009 10:21 AM
04-08-2009 10:35 AM
Thanks for the replies guys.
I understand its a hard question to answer with 100% certainty because carriers network policies vary so much. Im not sure if the WAP2.0 transcoder issue would affect me though. Perhaps i should explain what i want to do
I want to post a zlib compressed xml request to my server and receive a zlib compressed binary response.
Dont think transcoder will influence this but thats just a hunch.
So on this basis do you think it would be viable to bypass BIS-B assuming that i will have no trouble with WAP2.0?
Knowing there is no concrete answer i guess what im really asking is what would you do?
04-08-2009 11:00 AM
I'm not convinced about sending Binary data via http, so I tend to Base64 and then URL Encode it. But this post suggests it is OK:
Re issues with WAP 2 and Direct TCP, I strongly doubt that anything would mess with the POST data, and if you are sending binary data back, so long as it does not look like html, you should be OK. Worth a try.
04-09-2009 05:24 AM
Great stuff, thanks.
Im gonna put the alliance sign-up on hold.
Ill re-apply if and when we discover we need it.
You pretty much confirmed what i was thinking but its good to get a second opinion, especially from someone who knows a lot more about it than me!
Thanks again for the assistance i'd be lost without it.
05-19-2009 10:25 PM