Access to Wireless LAN ...

[Marco Cavaliere]

Hi everybody, I'm new to java programming, so be patient!

I'm start to programming java one mounth ago, and I'm try to programming
a smart-client for WLAN access, basically I need to change the ESSID
for my Wireless lan CARD, and of course, I need also to retrive the list
of all ESSID that the card detect, is it possible do it with java?

In linux I plan to use the commands: iwlist and iwconfig ... but in
windows I've no idea!

Any suggest?

 

[Paul Lutus]

Hi everybody, I'm new to java programming, so be patient!

I'm start to programming java one mounth ago, and I'm try to programming
a smart-client for WLAN access, basically I need to change the ESSID
for my Wireless lan CARD, and of course, I need also to retrive the list
of all ESSID that the card detect, is it possible do it with java?
No.


In linux I plan to use the commands: iwlist and iwconfig ... but in
windows I've no idea!

You cannot do this without calling native methods. This is not a Java issue.

 

[Marco Cavaliere]

No.
You cannot do this without calling native methods. This is not a Java issue.

Bad to hear this!
So the only way to make it is to use external commands? that are able to
set up the network proprieties.
If I've understood well!

 

[Paul Lutus]

Bad to hear this!
So the only way to make it is to use external commands? that are able to
set up the network proprieties.

Yes, because this is handled differently on each platform, it cannot be made
part of Java.

 

[Michael Borgwardt]

Yes, because this is handled differently on each platform, it cannot be made
part of Java.

You mean, like file systems and GUIs are different on each platform, making it
impossible to add file IO and GUIs to Java?

 

[Paul Lutus]

You mean, like file systems and GUIs are different on each platform,
making it impossible to add file IO and GUIs to Java?

No, because that isn't true -- filesystems are very much alike, and it is
therefore feasible to create a single meta-filesystem in Java.

Wireless interface manipulation is different -- each platform handles it
differently, some don't handle it at all.

 

[Michael Borgwardt]

No, because that isn't true -- filesystems are very much alike,

They differ quite fundamentally in a lot of aspects, such as restrictions
on file name lengths, allowed characters and charsets, directory depth,
access rights (users, groups, ACLs), and journalling.

Wireless interface manipulation is different -- each platform handles it
differently, some don't handle it at all.

There is no difference at all to the situation with file IO. Each
platform handles it differently, some (embedded systems) don't
handle it at all.

I don't see why you couldn't define a standard Java wireless LAN API and
leave it to the JVM vendors to implement it to whatever degree they
can on a particular platform (which may well mean "not at all" on some).

Actually, in the case of Wireless LAN, this should be easier than with
files, since it's standardized on the lower levels.

 

[Paul Lutus]

They differ quite fundamentally in a lot of aspects, such as restrictions
on file name lengths, allowed characters and charsets, directory depth,
access rights (users, groups, ACLs), and journalling.

Filesystems are very much alike. More important, they have important things
in common (see below).

There is no difference at all to the situation with file IO.

There is what? Then handling of wireless interfaces is not at all like
filesystems. For filesystems, of the sets of characteristics represented by
each of them, there is a significant subset where they intersect. So Java
can meaninfully exploit the existence of that subset to provide a uniform
filesystem interface.

For wireless interfaces, there is no shared subset. Therefore Java cannot
meaningfully create a virtual version of the interface, any more than it
can handle network cards directly.

In the future, once wireless interfaces are more modular and standardized,
this will of course change. But right now, the handling of these interfaces
is extremely ad hoc, each vendor insisting on his own independent reality.

Each
platform handles it differently, some (embedded systems) don't
handle it at all.

When that is true, there is no standard Java, which proves my point.

I don't see why you couldn't define a standard Java wireless LAN API and
leave it to the JVM vendors to implement it to whatever degree they
can on a particular platform (which may well mean "not at all" on some).

Java doesn't work that way. Traits that cannot be embodied in a practical
sense on most or all target platforms are excluded.

Actually, in the case of Wireless LAN, this should be easier than with
files, since it's standardized on the lower levels.

False. This is quite false. Consider the simple case of Bluetooth versus
802.11 technologies. They have nothing in common beyond a rudimentary
shared purpose.

All filesystems provide a set of reliable behaviors, read, write, get a
directory listing. Java includes these. At this stage, wireless interfaces
don't agree on anything -- there is no standard way to communicate with
them, and your specific request to gain access to, for example, ifconfig,
merely shows how platform-specific and balkanized the entire field is right
now.

Future, different story.

 

[Michael Borgwardt]

False. This is quite false. Consider the simple case of Bluetooth versus
802.11 technologies. They have nothing in common beyond a rudimentary
shared purpose.

And who said anything about Bluetooth? Marco does not require, nor
did I propose, a generalized API to all possible kinds of "wireless
interfaces" (are there really any relevant ones outside those two?).
He mentioned "Writelss LAN", which I've never seen used to mean
anything except specifically 802.11, and he talked about ESSIDs
which are a specific feature of that standard.

 

[Paul Lutus]

And who said anything about Bluetooth?

It is a wireless LAN technology. That's the topic. So the point is made.

Marco does not require, nor
did I propose, a generalized API to all possible kinds of "wireless
interfaces" (are there really any relevant ones outside those two?).

That is precisely what he asked for:

He mentioned "Writelss LAN", which I've never seen used to mean
anything except specifically 802.11,

Bluetooth is a wireless LAN. Q.E.D.

 

[Michael Borgwardt]

It is a wireless LAN technology. That's the topic. So the point is made.

No it is not (to all three of your statements).

Nowadays, "LAN" primarily connotates a general-purpose data network using
TCP/IP, and while bluetooth can be used to carry IP traffic, that is not its
main purpose and not what it was designed for. And the term "Wireless LAN" is
generally understood to mean IEEE 802.11

If you disagree, please provide sources (outside your own brain) where
Bluetooth is considered a subset of "wireless lan".

BTW, a google search for the phrase "bluetooth is a wireless lan"
returns exactly 8 results, three of which cite it as a common FALSE
belief.

That is precisely what he asked for:

Not, it precisely is not. So clever of you to snip the part where I pointed
out that he was specifically (and exclusively) inquiring about methods to
read and change ESSIDs, a term that has absolutely no meaning with Bluetooth.

Bluetooth is a wireless LAN. Q.E.D.

What a nice demonstration of the technique of "argumentum ad nauseum".

 

[Paul Lutus]

No it is not (to all three of your statements).

So Bluetooth is NOT a wireless LAN technology? Okay, we're done, and you
have just entered the Twilight Zone. Have a nice day.

 

[Michael Borgwardt]

So Bluetooth is NOT a wireless LAN technology?

Not for the prevailing definition of "wireless LAN".

Okay, we're done, and you
have just entered the Twilight Zone. Have a nice day.

I guess that translates from Paul-speak as "I've got no arguments left and
so I'll give up". Funny how you keep ignoring all the specific, concrete
points and get hung up about generals.

 

[Paul Lutus]

Not for the prevailing definition of "wireless LAN".

You are embarrassing yourself in a technical forum. Sloganeering aside,
Bluetooth is a wireless LAN technology.

Google "Bluetooth LAN", 22,600 hits.

I guess that translates from Paul-speak as "I've got no arguments left and
so I'll give up".

No, I posed my argument, and you replies by trying to claim that Bluetooth
is not a wireless LAN technology. It is you who lacks a defensible
argument.

Care to show how exactly Bluetooth is *not* a wireless LAN technology?

Funny how you keep ignoring all the specific, concrete
points

Bluetooth's status as a wireless LAN tecnology is as specific as you can
get, unless of course you don't know this.

 

[Paul Lutus]

Not for the prevailing definition of "wireless LAN".


I guess that translates from Paul-speak as "I've got no arguments left and
so I'll give up". Funny how you keep ignoring all the specific, concrete
points and get hung up about generals.

I wan to add something to this non-debate.

When IEEE 802.11 was released and developed, it didn't have a name, so it by
default was called "Wireless Lan." When IEEE 802.15.1 (Wireless Personal
Area Network) was released and developed, the members of the committee
chose the pre-existing "Bluetooth" wireless LAN technology (and name) as
its basis.

The result? You often see phrases like "Bluetooth vs. Wireless LAN" as
though the second excluded the first. This is, I think, the source of your
confusion and error. If you will take the time to learn this topic, you
will realize that these two wireless LAN technologies have a great deal
more in common than distinct properties.

The roles and purposes of these two wireless LAN technologies differ in some
details (like range), and they won't communicate to each other directly,
but they are otherwise very similar, and (need I add for the intellectually
challenged) they are both wireless LAN technologies.

http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/15/pub/TG1.html

Quote:

"The IEEE Project 802.15.1 has derived a Wireless Personal Area Network
standard based on the Bluetooth? v1.1 Foundation Specifications."

Here's my question, rocket scientist: If Bluetooth is, as you say, *not* a
wireles LAN technology, what in the world is the IEEE doing trying to make
it serve this precise, exact purpose?

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?section_name=dev&aid=3243

Quote:

"It's already well known that the PlayStation Portable will feature hardware
supporting the 802.11 wireless networking system, but new details of Sony's
future vision reveal that this will not only be used for multiplayer
between PSP devices - and explain why the company opted for the more
expensive and power-hungry 802.11 standard rather than the seemingly more
logical Bluetooth wireless system."

Meaning? 802.11 and Bluetooth are interchangeable wireless LAN technologies,
but Bluetooth costs less and requires less power, making people wonder what
Sony was thinking in passing up Bluetooth.

To return to the topic:

Not for the prevailing definition of "wireless LAN".

You have one choice: retract this position.

 

[Trent]

It is a wireless LAN technology. That's the topic. So the point is made.


That is precisely what he asked for:



Bluetooth is a wireless LAN. Q.E.D.

I just wanted to use my cell phone to call my coffee maker in the
morning, and tell it to turn on.

 

[Sudsy]

Trent wrote:

I just wanted to use my cell phone to call my coffee maker in the
morning, and tell it to turn on.

So you wanted to let your fingers do the walking?
Can you say "inappropriate use of technology"?!

[just so nobody gets upset, smiley follows]

:-/

 

[Michael Borgwardt]

You are embarrassing yourself in a technical forum. Sloganeering aside,
Bluetooth is a wireless LAN technology.

I am quite sure than most onlookers here will have found your behaviour
(sloganeering is a good word for it) rather more embarassing, certainly
socially, if not technically.

This thread was started with a request for technical help with
a specific problem, not for definition sophistry. And to that,
as I have to repeat for the socially challenged, it is absolutely
irrelevant whether Bluetooth is technically "*a* wireless LAN
technology", which is true (a point I would have conceded much
faster had you posted actual technical references that I had requested
right away, instead of sloganeering). What IS relevant is that the term
"wireless LAN" without further qualification is generally NOT
used to mean Bluetooth, which was in this case true without a shadow
of a doubt due to the mentioning of ESSIDs.

Bluetooth's status as a wireless LAN tecnology is as specific as you can
get,

And again you bullheadedly ignore the point. Were there a gold medal
for obstinacy, you'd have very good chances.

 

[Paul Lutus]

I am quite sure than most onlookers here will have found your behaviour
(sloganeering is a good word for it) rather more embarassing, certainly
socially, if not technically.

Honest to God, you were entirely wrong and I posted the proof.

This thread was started with a request for technical help with
a specific problem, not for definition sophistry.

Ah, I see. So once you are proven wrong, the sin is excessive technical
sophistication on the part of your opponent.

Ingenious, but not ingenuous.

And to that,
as I have to repeat for the socially challenged, it is absolutely
irrelevant whether Bluetooth is technically "*a* wireless LAN
technology",

You once asserted forcefully that it was false and very relevant, now it is
absolutely irrelevant. You could have taken the latter position earlier and
saved yourself no small public embarrassment.

 

[Michael Borgwardt]

Honest to God, you were entirely wrong and I posted the proof.

No, I was mostly right, except for accepting a common innacurate
terminology used by the original poster, on which you subsequently
focused to the exclusion of everything else.

Ah, I see. So once you are proven wrong, the sin is excessive technical
sophistication on the part of your opponent.

The sin is obsession with proving me wrong on a formality while
completely ignoring the actual question the thread began with, and my
repeated references to it.

You once asserted forcefully that it was false and very relevant, now it is

The only one who was forceful (obsessively so) about its relevance was you,
and so...

absolutely irrelevant. You could have taken the latter position earlier and
saved yourself no small public embarrassment.

The only one who embarassed himself publically was you.
Of course, you'll probably never admit (or even realize) that.