🚀 go-pugleaf

"Peter" <piotrtrzeciak@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:4798a5e1$1@newsgroups.borland.com...

> The original code was very simple:
<snip>

Your original code was reading endlessly, as TIdTCPStream::Read() always 
returns the same Count value that you pass in, so imageData->msg would 
always be greater than 0 until an exception occured.  Such logic is easy to 
reproduce using the code I already gave you earlier:

    while( imageData->msg > 0 )
    {
        // assuming rcv_buffer is a TIdBytes.  ReadBytes() will not exit 
until all 32000
        // bytes have been received.  The same was true for 
TIdTCPStream::Read() as well...
        AContext->Connection->IOHandler->ReadBytes(imageData->rcv_buffer, 
32000);
        imageData->msg = 32000;
        fwrite(&imageData->rcv_buffer[0], imageData->msg, 1, 
imageData->imgFile);
    }

> but now, I'm trying this:
<snip>
> and I get no data from the socket.

Then your client is not sending any data at all, or is more likely sending 
data after a small delay.  You are exiting your loop if the InputBuffer has 
no data each time you check it.  The first time you check the InputBuffer, 
if no data has arrived yet, you exit the loop right away.  At the very 
least, you should increase your timeout value to give the data a better 
chance of catching up to how fast your reading code is running.

With that said, the best option is to forget looping at all.  Have the 
client send the data size before sending the actual data.  Then your server 
knows exactly how many bytes to expect, and can call ReadBytes() or 
ReadStream() just once to do all of the work.  In fact, that is what you 
said in your original posting that you were doing, but you are not doing 
that anymore in this latest code snippet.  So by introducing InputBuffer 
checking into your code, which you did not need in the first place, you have 
made the code operate worse, not better.


Gambit