dll and market. - page 2
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
No.
We are fundamentally against the proliferation of DLLs and the creation of mass threats to traders. On the contrary, we are now working to curb the chaos that some companies are running quietly.
There are no "insecure" DLLs. Virtually any DLL (including system DLLs, almost all of which are infamously insecure) can be used to perform a stack-skipping attack followed by a control takeover. All it takes is the illusion of security in the form of trusted DLLs, and the security will immediately fall to the bottom of the barrel. For all the good developers will demand that incompetent users include their creations in the allowed lists. They don't care about anyone's recommendations or traders' safety, because all they care about is money.
We will never turn a critical system into a hole like Microsoft's solutions.
If there is a dialogue, a way out can be found.
For example, create a base of needs (what dlls programmers would like to use) and implement this functionality as MQL5 standard.
If there is a dialogue, a way out can be found.
For example, create a needs base (which dll programmers would like to use), and implement this functionality as an MQL5 standard.
So, you haven't read my post and haven't thought about it.
After all, I don't write much and give far fewer arguments than I know. A naive set of functions is easy to calculate, especially their consequences.
So you're suggesting the opposite - sell ex5 libs on the market and put dummies + dlls in the codebase?
If there is a dialogue, a way out could be found.
For example, create a needs base (which dll programmers would like to use), and implement this functionality as an MQL5 standard.
So you haven't read my post and haven't thought about it.
After all, I write little and give far fewer arguments than I know. A naive set of functions is easy to calculate, especially their consequences.
Strange situation, if I insist I'll get in trolls, if not I will be left without information that can not get anywhere else but from you.
But let's not get into abstraction, the man needs Filemapping, well, he does not want to beat a hard drive with temporary files to share information, what's wrong with that?
I propose to allocate a person who would deal just with what should be implemented and what not, and you say "a set of functions is easy to calculate, especially their consequences". If a request for a function doesn't fit, answer the person, we won't do it so and so, what's the problem.
You will obviously not answer, but the person who is responsible for it. But it will move.
It's simple - it's easy to make financial collabs through MQ if you leave everything to chance
Urain:
The person needs Filemapping, he doesn't want to bash the drive with temporary files for information exchange, what's wrong with that?
1. The person doesn't want filemapping, but something that is well implemented with mapping.
2. Nothing wrong with that, but not to the mag.
3. I described the legal way of implementation above.
There are as many as three alternatives, for the sake of one person to break the principles of mapping?
Named channels are available in the interprocess for nice-looking data exchange.
Fine, don't know if that's what he needs, let's hope so.
But the general question is different, SR is so overloaded that a simple microsecond timer was implemented for a year (in the coming year we will ask for modifications, for example a priority control in the reset of events, of course we will).
The question is in the dialogue, there is no transparent dialogue so that the responsible person will point a finger at the link (this already asked), but this we will consider.
I don't know, make a branch on implementation requests, so that it would be possible to see where we are moving. Because it's impossible to plan the development if it's not clear when and whether this or that question will be realized.
You can use named channels for nice data exchange in the interprocess.
the problem is that the EA starts in Server mode and you only have clients in pips.
they are not suitable .
so please add server mode to MQL pips. is it ok? or security will also be compromised?