🚀 go-pugleaf

Vladimir Stefanovic wrote:


>What do you think I should keed in config

Everything.

> and what hardcoded?

Nothing.


>2) About sending data. If I have TStringList which contains
>AT commands, how should I technically send them /pseudo/:
>
>   a) // Port is opened all the time
>      CreateFile(); // Opens port at server start/resume
>      for ( int i=0; i<ATCommands->Count; i++ )
>         WriteSomeBufferToSpecifiedComPort( ATCommands[i] );
>      CloseHandle(); // Close port at server stop/pause
>
>   b) // Port is opened for sending a whole list, and then closes
>      CreateFile(); // Open port at start of sending a serie
>      for ( int i=0; i<ATCommands->Count; i++ )
>         WriteSomeBufferToSpecifiedComPort( ATCommands[i] );
>      CloseHandle(); // Close port when a serie is sent

That's the same code as (a)


>   c) // Port is opened for sending a single item only
>      for ( int i=0; i<ATCommands->Count; i++ )
>      {
>         CreateFile(); // Opens port
>         WriteSomeBufferToSpecifiedComPort( ATCommands[i] );
>         CloseHandle(); // Closes port
>      }

Might be desirable if you are using multiple threads, or changing
configurations, otherwise, not likely the best.


>3) When writing data (WriteFile) to COM port, how the device
>knows that is has received the whole package of data (one item
>'AT command' from stringlist), and what is the second, etc?
>Maybe the '\0' is the terminator?

All AT commands are terminated with a carrage return ( '\n' ).
	"ATs0=1\n"


>Does this code can be used for a loop?
>   for ( int i=0; i<ATCommands->Count; i++ )
>      WriteABuffer( ATCommands[i].c_str(), ATCommands[i].Length() );

No, because you aren't checking the return value.
Nor do you ever wait for completion.
Nor do you set up an event that gets triggered when the write
completes.
In other words. you completely ignore all of the benefits of
overlapped i/o.

>5) For my case are 'overlapped' or 'non-overlapped' solutions better?

Since you don't use any of the overlapped features, the code you
showed would be very much simpler and clearer if you just used
non-overlapped i/o to begin with.