News | 资讯新闻类APP-Swift仿网易新闻客户端 | iOS library

You are using the JSON Alt Type variant of the Google Data protocol. This protocol is dated and appears to no longer work reliably. The GData API Directory tells:

Google Spreadsheets Data API: GData version is still live. Replaced by the Google Sheets API v4.

Google Sheets API v4 is a modern RESTful interface that is typically used with a client library to handle authentication and batch processing of data requests. If you do not want to do a full-blown client implementation, David Kutcher offers the following v4 analog for the GData JSON Alt Type, using jQuery:

GData (old version, not recommended):

That happens, because you're trying to update state asynchronously, and the update could happen when the component is unmounted.

You can keep a ref that will check if the component is mounted or not like in the code below.

Because I can't see the implementation of the AxiosGetData, you can just check is that ref is true, when you will consume the promise from the axios.

You can identify the EC2-Classic env by checking the instance has VPC ID or not.

EC2 console

VPC ID is not shown by default. Enable VPC ID from Preference -> Attribute columns.

Then if VPC ID attribute is -, that means the instance is EC2-Classic. (Except that the instance state is not terminated.)

CLI

2 ways for checking. Output is none unless EC2-classic instances exist.

• Describe instance with EC2-Classic env.

You need to remove the animation, then set it back to reset it:

After further consideration, I think a simpler solution for replacement should be using C# Reflection instead of relying on JSON. Tell me if it does not satisfy your need:

The point of async/await is not that methods are executed more quickly. Rather, it's about what a thread is doing while those methods are waiting for a response from a database, the file system, an HTTP request, or some other I/O.

Without asynchronous execution the thread just waits. It is, in a sense, wasted, because during that time it is doing nothing. We don't have an unlimited supply of threads, so having threads sit and wait is wasteful.

Async/await simply allows threads to do other things. Instead of waiting, the thread can serve some other request. And then, when the database query is finished or the HTTP request receives a response, the next available thread picks up execution of that code.

So yes, the individual lines in your example still execute in sequence. They just execute more efficiently. If your application is receiving many requests, it can process those requests sooner because more threads are available to do work instead of blocking, just waiting for a response from some I/O operation.

I highly recommend this blog post: There Is No Thread. There is some confusion that async/await is about executing something on another thread. It is not about that at all. It's about ensuring that no thread is sitting and waiting when it could be doing something else.

HttpClient, please forgive me! It was not your fault!

Well, this investigation was huge. And I'll have to split the answer into two parts since there turned out to be two unconnected problems.

As I said, the utility was being tested from behind a corporate proxy. In case if you haven't known (like I haven't till the latest days) when using a proxy server it's not your machine performing DNS queries - it's the proxy server doing this for you.

I've made some measurements to understand for how long does the utility keep connecting to the wrong DC after the DNS record switch. And the answer was the fantastic exact 30 minutes. This experiment has also clearly shown that local Windows DNS cache has nothing to do with it: those 30 minutes were starting exactly at the point when the proxy server was waking up (was finally starting to send HTTP requests to the right DC).

The exact number of 30 minutes has helped one of our administrators to finally figure out that the proxy servers have a configuration parameter of minimal DNS TTL which is set to 1800 seconds by default. So the proxies have their own DNS cache. These are hardware Cisco proxies and the admin has also noted that this parameter is "hidden quite deeply" and is not even mentioned in the user manual.

As soon as the minimal proxies' DNS TTL was changed from 1800 seconds to 1 second (yeah, admins have no mercy) the issue stopped reproducing on my machine.

Well. As I also said there are several proxies. There is a single corporate proxy DNS name, but if you run nslookup for it - it shows multiple IPs behind it. Each time the proxy server's IP address is resolved (for example when local cache expires) - there's quite a bit of a chance that you'll jump onto another proxy server.

And that's exactly what ipconfig /flushdns has been doing to me. As soon as I started playing around with proxy servers using their direct IP addresses instead of their common DNS name I found that different proxies may easily route identical requests to different DCs. That's because some of them have those 30-minutes-cached DNS records while others have to perform resolving.

Unfortunately, after the proxies theory has been proven, another news came in: the production monitoring servers are placed outside of the corporate network and they do not use any proxy servers. So here we go...

The monitoring servers are configured to use 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 Google's DNS servers. Resolve responses for our short-lived DNS records from these servers are somewhat weird:

• The returned TTL of CNAME records swings at around 1 hour mark. It gradually decreases for several minutes and then jumps back to 3600 seconds - and so on.
• The returned TTL of the root A-record is almost always exactly 60 seconds. I was occasionally receiving various numbers less than 60 but there was no any obvious humanly-percievable logic. So it seems like these IP addresses in fact point to balancers that distribute requests between multiple similar DNS servers which are not synced with each other (and each of them has its own cache).

Windows is not stupid and according to my experiments it doesn't care about CNAME's TTL and only cares about the root A-record TTL, so its client cache even for CNAME records is never assigned a TTL higher than 60 seconds.

But due to the inconsistency (or in some sense over-consistency?) of the A-record TTL which Google's servers return (unpredictable 0-60 seconds) the Windows local cache gets confused. There were two facts which demonstrated it:

• Multiple calls to Resolve-DnsName for site1 and site2 over several minutes with random pauses between them have eventually led to Get-ClientDnsCache showing the local cache TTLs of the two site names diverged on up to 15 seconds. This is a big enough difference to sometimes mess the things up. And that's just my short experiment, so I'm quite sure that it might actually get bigger.
• Executing Invoke-WebRequest to each of the sites one right after another once in every 3-5 seconds while switching the DNS records has let me twicely face a situation when the requests went to different DCs.

The latter experiment had one strange detail I can't explain. Calling Get-DnsClientCache after Invoke-WebRequest shows no records appear in the local cache for the just-requested site names. But anyway the problem clearly has been reproduced.

It would take time to see whether my workaround with real-time DNS resolving would bring any improvement. Unfortunately, I don't believe it will - the DNS servers used at production (which would eventually be used by the monitoring utility for real-time IP resolving) are public Google DNS which are not reliable in my case.

And one thing which is worse than an intermittently failing monitoring utility is that real-world users are also relying on public DNS servers and they definitely do face problems during our maintenance works or significant failures.

So have we learned anything out of all this?

• Maybe a short DNS TTL is generally a bad practice?
• Maybe we should install additional routers, assign them static IPs, attach the DNS names to them and then route traffic internally between our DCs to finally stop relying on DNS records changing?
• Or maybe public DNS servers are doing a bad job?
• Or maybe the technological singularity is closer than we think?

I have no idea. But its quite possible that "yes" is the right answer to all of these questions.

However there is one thing we surely have learned: network hardware manufacturers shall write their documentation better.

You can try solving your problem by using the float property in the image tag and wrap it in a paragraph tag. This will wrap your text around the image in desktop view and it also works as you want in the mobile view, without using media queries.

here is a link to my code: https: Codepen link