interrogating request - traducción al ruso
Diclib.com
Diccionario ChatGPT
Ingrese una palabra o frase en cualquier idioma 👆
Idioma:

Traducción y análisis de palabras por inteligencia artificial ChatGPT

En esta página puede obtener un análisis detallado de una palabra o frase, producido utilizando la mejor tecnología de inteligencia artificial hasta la fecha:

  • cómo se usa la palabra
  • frecuencia de uso
  • se utiliza con más frecuencia en el habla oral o escrita
  • opciones de traducción
  • ejemplos de uso (varias frases con traducción)
  • etimología

interrogating request - traducción al ruso

METHOD BY WHICH COMPUTERS COMMUNICATE
Request-reply; Request/reply; Request-response; Request/response

interrogating request      
запрос идентификации
automatic repeat request         
ERROR-CONTROL METHOD FOR DATA TRANSMISSION
Automatic Repeat Request; ARQ protocol; Automatic repeat-request; Automatic Repeat reQuest
автоматический запрос на повторение передачи
request         
WIKIMEDIA DISAMBIGUATION PAGE
Requests; Request (disambiguation); Request (album); Requests (disambiguation); Requeſt

Definición

Request For Comments
<standard> (RFC) One of a series, begun in 1969, of numbered Internet informational documents and standards widely followed by commercial software and freeware in the Internet and Unix communities. Few RFCs are standards but all Internet standards are recorded in RFCs. Perhaps the single most influential RFC has been RFC 822, the Internet electronic mail format standard. The RFCs are unusual in that they are floated by technical experts acting on their own initiative and reviewed by the Internet at large, rather than formally promulgated through an institution such as ANSI. For this reason, they remain known as RFCs even once adopted as standards. The RFC tradition of pragmatic, experience-driven, after-the-fact standard writing done by individuals or small working groups has important advantages over the more formal, committee-driven process typical of ANSI or ISO. Emblematic of some of these advantages is the existence of a flourishing tradition of "joke" RFCs; usually at least one a year is published, usually on April 1st. Well-known joke RFCs have included 527 ("ARPAWOCKY", R. Merryman, UCSD; 22 June 1973), 748 ("Telnet Randomly-Lose Option", Mark R. Crispin; 1 April 1978), and 1149 ("A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers", D. Waitzman, BBN STC; 1 April 1990). The first was a Lewis Carroll pastiche; the second a parody of the TCP/IP documentation style, and the third a deadpan skewering of standards-document legalese, describing protocols for transmitting Internet data packets by carrier pigeon. The RFCs are most remarkable for how well they work - they manage to have neither the ambiguities that are usually rife in informal specifications, nor the committee-perpetrated misfeatures that often haunt formal standards, and they define a network that has grown to truly worldwide proportions. rfc.net (http://rfc.net/). {W3 (http://w3.org/hypertext/DataSources/Archives/RFC_sites.html)}. JANET UK FTP (ftp://nic.ja.net/pub/newsfiles/JIPS/rfc). Imperial College, UK FTP (ftp://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/rfc/). Nexor UK (http://nexor.com/public/rfc/index/rfc.html). {Ohio State U (http://cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html)}. See also For Your Information, STD. (1997-11-10)

Wikipedia

Request–response

In computer science, request–response or request–reply is one of the basic methods computers use to communicate with each other in a network, in which the first computer sends a request for some data and the second responds to the request. More specifically, it is a message exchange pattern in which a requestor sends a request message to a replier system, which receives and processes the request, ultimately returning a message in response. It is analogous to a telephone call, in which the caller must wait for the recipient to pick up before anything can be discussed. This is a simple but powerful messaging pattern which allows two applications to have a two-way conversation with one another over a channel; it is especially common in client–server architectures.

For simplicity, this pattern is typically implemented in a purely synchronous fashion, as in web service calls over HTTP, which holds a connection open and waits until the response is delivered or the timeout period expires. However, request–response may also be implemented asynchronously, with a response being returned at some unknown later time. When a synchronous system communicates with an asynchronous system, it is referred to as "sync over async" or "sync/async". This is common in enterprise application integration (EAI) implementations where slow aggregations, time-intensive functions, or human workflow must be performed before a response can be constructed and delivered.

In contrast, one-way computer communication, which is like the push-to-talk or "barge in" feature found on some phones and two-way radios, sends a message without waiting for a response. Sending an email is an example of one-way communication, and another example are fieldbus sensors, such as most CAN bus sensors, which periodically and autonomously send out their data, whether or not any other devices on the bus are listening for it. (Most of these systems use a "listen before talk" or other contention-based protocol so multiple sensors can transmit periodic updates without any pre-coordination.)

¿Cómo se dice interrogating request en Ruso? Traducción de &#39interrogating request&#39 al Ruso