🚀 go-pugleaf

Eduardo Jauch escreveu:
> Hello!
> 
> My modem have some "problems", and eventually, he turns a "Timeout" 
> message when I try to access any page.
> 
> I have an aplication that use send and recv to access a page, and when 
> this happens, the recv don't "return".
> 
> How to adjust the timeout of recv? There's a way to do this?
> 
> 
> Thanks!


In time...

I use non-block sockets... So, looks I can't use select... right?

Anyway, Select seens to be a very "slow" method, isn't it?

Thanks!

Eduardo Jauch escreveu:
> Eduardo Jauch escreveu:
>> Hello!
>>
>> My modem have some "problems", and eventually, he turns a "Timeout" 
>> message when I try to access any page.
>>
>> I have an aplication that use send and recv to access a page, and when 
>> this happens, the recv don't "return".
>>
>> How to adjust the timeout of recv? There's a way to do this?
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
> 
> 
> In time...
> 
> I use non-block sockets... So, looks I can't use select... right?
> 
> Anyway, Select seens to be a very "slow" method, isn't it?
> 
> Thanks!

A litle correction...
I don't know if my application is "non-block" (because I allways am 
confused about this... rsrsrs)

I use a SOCK_STREAM type socket.
And many send/recv.

All send will have a recv unless there an error or the server don't respond.

Thanks.

Eduardo Jauch wrote:

>>> I have an aplication that use send and recv to access a page, and when 
>>> this happens, the recv don't "return".
>>>
>>> How to adjust the timeout of recv? There's a way to do this?

So, are you using the Windows API  <winsock2.h> ?

	setsockopt()  with  SO_RCVTIMEO

>> I use non-block sockets... So, looks I can't use select... right?
>A litle correction...
>I don't know if my application is "non-block" (because I allways am 
>confused about this... rsrsrs)

If your program calls recv and expects the data to be there at the end of the call, then
it is "blocked" at that point.
If your program calls WSARecv with the Overlapped options set, and continues on doing
other things, hoping someday the data will arrive and be handled by the OverlapedRoutine,
then it is "non-blocking".

What you want will probably look something like this......

struct timeval timeo;
timeo.tv_sec  = 1;
timeo.tv_usec = 0;
int ret = setsockopt(sockfd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVTIMEO, &timeo, 
sizeof(timeo));



Eduardo Jauch wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> My modem have some "problems", and eventually, he turns a "Timeout" 
> message when I try to access any page.
> 
> I have an aplication that use send and recv to access a page, and when 
> this happens, the recv don't "return".
> 
> How to adjust the timeout of recv? There's a way to do this?
> 
> 
> Thanks!

Bob Gonder escreveu:
> Eduardo Jauch wrote:
> 
> 
> So, are you using the Windows API  <winsock2.h> ?

Yep! :)

> 
> 	setsockopt()  with  SO_RCVTIMEO
> 
> If your program calls recv and expects the data to be there at the end of the call, then
> it is "blocked" at that point.
> If your program calls WSARecv with the Overlapped options set, and continues on doing
> other things, hoping someday the data will arrive and be handled by the OverlapedRoutine,
> then it is "non-blocking".
> 

Hum... So, my program is "Blocked"...

The big problem seens to be when the "internet connection" fail (like a 
fault by the telecom provider) or when the site go off (when it's on 
maintenance). When this event's occour, the program "freeze"...

But I think that this can be a problem of my code... I'm doing a few 
modifications and when it's ok, I'll do some tests and tell if this 
continue happening...

I'll see the function. It works with block programs?

Thanks!

Colin B Maharaj escreveu:
> 
> What you want will probably look something like this......
> 
> struct timeval timeo;
> timeo.tv_sec  = 1;
> timeo.tv_usec = 0;
> int ret = setsockopt(sockfd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVTIMEO, &timeo, 
> sizeof(timeo));
> 
> 

This will work with block programs?

I usually use recv and wait until it returns...

Thanks!

Yes it should, however I do things differently now.

Firstly I do not use thus timeout anymore.

I wrote some code where recv waits forever,
then populates a string when data comes in
and if one of the chars is a linefeed
I trigger an event like this......

SetEvent(GotData);

where

HANDLE GotData = CreateEvent(NULL, false, false, NULL);

Then when I read a string, I do like this....

bool Timeout=false;
AnsiString  __fastcall MySockets::ReadLn(int timeoutms)
{
   AnsiString A = "";
   DWORD ret=WaitForSingleObject(GotData, timeoutms);
   if (ret==WAIT_TIMEOUT) { Timeout=true; return A; }
   if (ret==WAIT_OBJECT_0)
   {
     <PSEUDOCODE> A = ExtractData() </PSEUDOCODE>
     return A;
   }
   return A; // maybe some other error....
}



Eduardo Jauch wrote:
> Colin B Maharaj escreveu:
>>
>> What you want will probably look something like this......
>>
>> struct timeval timeo;
>> timeo.tv_sec  = 1;
>> timeo.tv_usec = 0;
>> int ret = setsockopt(sockfd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVTIMEO, &timeo, 
>> sizeof(timeo));
>>
>>
> 
> This will work with block programs?
> 
> I usually use recv and wait until it returns...
> 
> Thanks!

Eduardo Jauch wrote:

>Bob Gonder escreveu:
>> 	setsockopt()  with  SO_RCVTIMEO
>
>I'll see the function. It works with block programs?

It works with sockets.
Doesn't care if it is blocking socket or not.

Bob Gonder escreveu:
> Eduardo Jauch wrote:
> 
>> Bob Gonder escreveu:
>>> 	setsockopt()  with  SO_RCVTIMEO
>> I'll see the function. It works with block programs?
> 
> It works with sockets.
> Doesn't care if it is blocking socket or not.
> 
> 

hum...

Thanks! :)
I'll try to use it! [:)]

Colin B Maharaj escreveu:
> 
> Yes it should, however I do things differently now.
> 
> Firstly I do not use thus timeout anymore.
> 
> I wrote some code where recv waits forever,
> then populates a string when data comes in
> and if one of the chars is a linefeed
> I trigger an event like this......
> 
> SetEvent(GotData);
> 
> where
> 
> HANDLE GotData = CreateEvent(NULL, false, false, NULL);
> 
> Then when I read a string, I do like this....
> 
> bool Timeout=false;
> AnsiString  __fastcall MySockets::ReadLn(int timeoutms)
> {
>   AnsiString A = "";
>   DWORD ret=WaitForSingleObject(GotData, timeoutms);
>   if (ret==WAIT_TIMEOUT) { Timeout=true; return A; }
>   if (ret==WAIT_OBJECT_0)
>   {
>     <PSEUDOCODE> A = ExtractData() </PSEUDOCODE>
>     return A;
>   }
>   return A; // maybe some other error....
> }
> 

hum...
I don't now if this aproach work on my application...

I download many html pages in a specific order, one after one...
They are different html, that depends on the results of the last.

Of course that will work... But I think that use timeout to determine if 
I need to restart is more simple... I'll try the firs option...

But I'll think in a way to use this... The problem is that I need 
"extreme" velocity, and I don't know if work with events is a good idea 
in this case...

Anyway, much thanks! =D

"Eduardo Jauch" <eduardo.jauch@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46869fb5$1@newsgroups.borland.com...

> I use non-block sockets... So, looks I can't use select... right?

Yes, you can.

> Anyway, Select seens to be a very "slow" method, isn't it?

No, it is not.


Gambit

"Eduardo Jauch" <eduardo.jauch@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4686a522$1@newsgroups.borland.com...

> I don't know if my application is "non-block" (because I allways
> am confused about this... rsrsrs)

All sockets are blocking by default.  You have to explicitally call
the ioctlsocket() function with the FIONBIO flag set to 1 in order to
turn on non-blocking mode.


Gambit

"Eduardo Jauch" <eduardo.jauch@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46877265$1@newsgroups.borland.com...

> The big problem seens to be when the "internet connection" fail
> (like a fault by the telecom provider) or when the site go off
> (when it's on maintenance). When this event's occour, the program
"freeze"...

That is why you should be using timeouts.  Obviously, you are not
doing that yet.


Gambit

"Colin B Maharaj" <noreply@myhost.com> wrote in message
news:468715f2@newsgroups.borland.com...

> What you want will probably look something like this......

Make sure that you initialize WinSock to use version 2.0.  Older
versions of WinSock did not support SO_RCVTIMEO and SO_SNDTIMEO

Personally, I never use SO_RCVTIMEO and SO_SNDTIMEO in my code.  I
always use select() and it works fine.


Gambit

Remy Lebeau (TeamB) escreveu:
> 
> Make sure that you initialize WinSock to use version 2.0.  Older
> versions of WinSock did not support SO_RCVTIMEO and SO_SNDTIMEO
> 
> Personally, I never use SO_RCVTIMEO and SO_SNDTIMEO in my code.  I
> always use select() and it works fine.
> 
> 
> Gambit
> 
> 

Hum...

I was reading about using select...
First I'll do a test with SO_RCVTIMEO.

And then I'll try to use select.

Thanks Remy :)