client.connect() takes too long if server is unavailable...

[syalujjwal]

In case the server is unavailable, the client.connect() takes too long to return false and come out of the block. This takes 1.5 secs approx. which is too long for my project. Is there a way to solve this problem? Can there be a timeout set in case the client cannot connect within N milli secs?

Want to back this issue? Post a bounty on it! We accept bounties via Bountysource.

If have got a similar problem. Sometime the Client.connect() of a WIFISecureClient (Release 2.0.0) takes too long to return and causes a WDT reset.

[syalujjwal]

Hi...any solution for this?

[syalujjwal]

Hi...still waiting. Please help!!!

[marvinroger]

connect() takes 5 seconds for me, but no WDT reset.

[battuashwik]

Any update on this. This is becoming a blocker for applications that need to do other jobs when not connected to the server, something like saving state to eeprom.

[igrr]

Please quantify "too long". Current behavior is to wait until either "connected" or "connection refused", but not more than 5 seconds. I can change this to the same timeout which is set using client.setTimeout, will this help?

[syalujjwal]

This should help. I mean any feature that allows the coder to manually set
number seconds to "wait for client or move on" is necessary in many cases.

Please let up know what can be done for this. It's required urgently as
some finished products are facing this issue.

Thanks
On May 14, 2016 8:59 AM, "Ivan Grokhotkov" notifications@github.com wrote:

Please quantify "too long". Current behavior is to wait until either
"connected" or "connection refused", but not more than 5 seconds. I can
change this to the same timeout which is set using client.setTimeout, will
this help?

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1420 (comment)

[battuashwik]

@igrr, Thanks for reply. That would help a bit but a better way would be to make it asynchronous and let the user monitor a status variable to check if the connection is successful. This way the code is non blocking and use cases where there are other tasks to perform while waiting for the connection can also be done.

Ex.

void loop() {
if (CLIENT_STATUS == "WAITING") {
 // meanwhile can do other jobs also
} else if (CLIENT_STATUS ==  "CONNECTED"){
 // do watever needs to be done after connection
} else {
 client.connect(IP_ADDRESS, MASTER_PORT);
}
}

[igrr]

@battuashwik If you need asynchronous operation, then you should probably use ESPAsyncTCP library.

[battuashwik]

Completely missed this in the mentioned libraries. Thanks a lot for the help.

[syalujjwal]

Its great that now this is into consideration. Just wanted to know how can
I come to know about the new updates and development on this, and when the
new feature is alive?

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:30 AM, battuashwik notifications@github.com
wrote:

Completely missed this in the mentioned libraries. Thanks a lot for the
help.

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1420 (comment)

[igrr]

@syalujjwal could you please clarify what are you referring to in your last question: ESPAsyncTCP library, or changing client.connect timeout to the same value as client.setTimeout ?

[syalujjwal]

both are good enough solutions for me. I wish to use a library that allows
me to get control over how much time the client.connect blocks the code
for. Whatever it is that you are working on first, i would love to know
more about it and its availability. :)

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Ivan Grokhotkov notifications@github.com
wrote:

@syalujjwal https://github.com/syalujjwal could you please clarify what
are you referring to in your last question: ESPAsyncTCP library, or
changing client.connect timeout to the same value as client.setTimeout ?

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1420 (comment)

[igrr]

You can totally use ESPAsyncTCP library right now.