We Keep Coding

When I send a command to server from client , the client receives the response only if the request is sent twice

I am trying to send commands to the server , like for example requesting the server to send back the list of files in it's directory. The problem is that when I send the "list" command to the server, I have to send it twice in order for the server to send back the list of files to the client. I am sure that the server receives the command in both times as on the server side I print the result that is supposed to be sent to the client on the console and it appears both times.
I am using C# and TCPListeners to listen for incoming responses or commands, and TCPClient to send responses or commands between the server and the client.
The client code
private TcpListener tcpListener = new TcpListener(9090);
private void button3_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Byte[] bytesToSend = ASCIIEncoding.ASCII.GetBytes("list");
try
{
TcpClient clientSocket = new TcpClient(serverIPFinal, 8080);
if (clientSocket.Connected)
{
NetworkStream networkStream = clientSocket.GetStream();
networkStream.Write(bytesToSend, 0, bytesToSend.Length);
// networkStream.Close();
// clientSocket.Close();
thdListener = new Thread(new ThreadStart(listenerThreadList));
thdListener.Start();
}
}
catch
{
isConnectedLbl.Text = "Server not running";
}
}
//Listener Thread to receive list of files.
public void listenerThreadList()
{
tcpListener.Start();
while (true)
{
handlerSocket = tcpListener.AcceptSocket();
if (handlerSocket.Connected)
{
Control.CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = false;
lock (this)
{
if (handlerSocket != null)
{
nSockets.Add(handlerSocket);
}
}
ThreadStart thdstHandler = new
ThreadStart(handlerThreadList);
Thread thdHandler = new Thread(thdstHandler);
thdHandler.Start();
}
}
}
//Handler Thread to receive list of files.
public void handlerThreadList()
{
Socket handlerSocketList = (Socket)nSockets[nSockets.Count - 1];
NetworkStream networkStreams = new NetworkStream(handlerSocketList);
int requestRead = 0;
string dataReceived;
byte[] buffer = new byte[1024];
//int iRx = soc.Receive(buffer);
requestRead = networkStreams.Read(buffer, 0, 1024);
char[] chars = new char[requestRead];
System.Text.Decoder d = System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetDecoder();
int charLen = d.GetChars(buffer, 0, requestRead, chars, 0);
dataReceived = new System.String(chars);
Console.WriteLine(dataReceived);
MessageBox.Show(dataReceived);
//tcpListener.Stop();
thdListener.Abort();
}
The Server code:
TcpListener tcpListener = new TcpListener(8080);
public void listenerThreadCommands()
{
tcpListener.Start();
while (true)
{
handlerSocket = tcpListener.AcceptSocket();
if (handlerSocket.Connected)
{
Control.CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = false;
connections.Items.Add(
handlerSocket.RemoteEndPoint.ToString() + " connected.");
// clientIP = handlerSocket.RemoteEndPoint.ToString();
lock (this)
{
nSockets.Add(handlerSocket);
}
ThreadStart thdstHandler = new
ThreadStart(handlerThreadCommands);
Thread thdHandler = new Thread(thdstHandler);
thdHandler.Start();
//tcpListener.Stop();
//handlerSocket.Close();
}
}
}
//Handler Thread to receive commands
public void handlerThreadCommands()
{
Socket handlerSocketCommands = (Socket)nSockets[nSockets.Count - 1];
NetworkStream networkStream = new NetworkStream(handlerSocketCommands);
int requestRead = 0;
string dataReceived;
byte[] buffer = new byte[1024];
requestRead = networkStream.Read(buffer, 0, 1024);
char[] chars = new char[requestRead];
System.Text.Decoder d = System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetDecoder();
int charLen = d.GetChars(buffer, 0, requestRead, chars, 0);
dataReceived = new System.String(chars);
//connections.Items.Add(dataReceived);
if (dataReceived.Equals("list"))
{
localDate = DateTime.Now;
Files = Directory.GetFiles(System.IO.Directory.GetCurrentDirectory())
.Select(Path.GetFileName)
.ToArray();
String FilesString = "";
for (int i = 0; i < Files.Length; i++)
{
FilesString += Files[i] + "\n";
}
String clientIP = handlerSocketCommands.RemoteEndPoint.ToString();
int index = clientIP.IndexOf(":");
clientIP = clientIP.Substring(0, index);
WriteLogFile(logFilePath, clientIP, localDate.ToString(), " ", "list");
Console.WriteLine(clientIP);
Console.WriteLine(FilesString);
Byte[] bytesToSend = ASCIIEncoding.ASCII.GetBytes(FilesString);
try
{
WriteLogFile(logFilePath, clientIP, localDate.ToString(), " ", "list-response");
TcpClient clientSocket = new TcpClient(clientIP, 9090);
if (clientSocket.Connected)
{
NetworkStream networkStreamS = clientSocket.GetStream();
networkStreamS.Write(bytesToSend, 0, bytesToSend.Length);
networkStreamS.Close();
clientSocket.Close();
networkStream.Close();
//tcpListener.Stop();
// handlerSocketAuthenticate.Close();
}
}
catch
{
Console.WriteLine("Cant send");
}
}
else if (dataReceived.Equals("downloadfile"))
{
// handlerSocketAuthenticate.Close();
// tcpListener.Stop();
networkStream.Close();
thdListenerDownload = new Thread(new ThreadStart(listenerThreadDownloading));
thdListenerDownload.Start();
}
else
{
String clientIP1 = handlerSocketCommands.RemoteEndPoint.ToString();
int index = clientIP1.IndexOf(":");
clientIP1 = clientIP1.Substring(0, index);
// handlerSocketAuthenticate.Close();
CommandExecutor(dataReceived, clientIP1);
}
}

There are so many different things wrong with the code you posted, it's hard to know where to start, and it's impossible to have confidence that in the context of a Stack Overflow, one could sufficiently address all of the deficiencies. That said, in the interest of helping, it seems worth a try:
Sockets are bi-directional. There is no need for the client to use TcpListener at all. (By convention, the "server" is the endpoint that "listens" for new connections, and the "client" is the endpoint that initiates new connections, by connecting to a listening server.)You should just make a single connection from client to server, and then use that socket both for sending to and receiving from the server.
You are setting the CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls property to false. This is evil. The exceptions that occur are there to help you. Setting that property to false disables the exceptions, but does nothing to prevent the problems that the exceptions are designed to warn you about.You should use some mechanism to make sure that when you access UI objects, you do so only in the thread that owns those objects. The most primitive approach to this is to use Control.Invoke(). In modern C#, you are better off using async/await. With TcpClient, this is easy: you already are using GetStream() to get the NetworkStream object that represents the socket, so just use the asynchronous methods on that object, such as ReadAsync(), or if you wrap the stream in a StreamWriter and StreamReader, use the asynchronous methods on that object, such as ReadLineAsync().
You are checking the Connected property of the TcpClient object. This is pointless. When the Connect() method returns, you are connected. If you weren't, an exception would have been thrown.
You are not sufficiently synchronizing access to your nSockets object. In particular, you use its indexer in the handlerThreadList() method. This is safe when using the object concurrently only if you have guaranteed that no other thread is modifying the object, which is not the case in your code.
You are writing to the stream using ASCII encoding, but reading using UTF8 encoding. In practice, this is not really a problem, because ASCII includes only the code points 0-127, and those map exactly to the same character code points in UTF8. But it's really bad form. Pick one encoding, stick with it.
You are accepting using AcceptSocket(), but then just wrapping that in a NetworkStream anyway. Why not just use AcceptTcpClient() and call GetStream() on that? Both Socket and TcpClient are fine APIs, but it's a bit weird to mix and match in the same program, and will likely lead to some confusion later on, trying to keep straight which you're using where and why.
Your code assumes that the handlerThreadCommands() method will always be called in exactly the same order in which connections are accepted. That is, you retrieve the current socket with nSockets[nSockets.Count - 1]. But, due to the way Windows thread scheduling works, it is entirely possible that two or more connections could be accepted before any one of the threads meant to handle the connection is started, with the result that only the most recent connection is handled, and it is handled by those multiple threads.
You are assuming that command strings will be received as complete units. But this isn't how TCP works. TCP guarantees only that if you receive a byte, it will be in order relative to all the bytes sent before it. But you can receive any number of bytes. In particular, you can receive just a single byte, or you can receive multiple commands concatenated with each other, or you can receive half a command string, then the other half later, or the second half of one command and the first half of the next, etc. In practice, these problems don't show up in early testing because the server isn't operating under load, but later on they very well may be. And the code needs to be designed from the outset to work properly under these conditions; trying to patch bad code later is much more difficult.
I can't say that's the above are the only things wrong with the code, but they are most glaring, and in any case I think the above is sufficient food for thought for you at the moment.
Bottom line: you really should spend more time looking at good networking examples, and really getting to understand how they work and why they are written the way they do. You'll need to develop a good mental model for yourself of how the TCP protocol works, and make sure you are being very careful to follow the rules.
One resource I recommend highly is The Winsock Programmer's FAQ. It was written long ago, for a pre-.NET audience, but most of the information contained within is still very much relevant when using the higher-level networking APIs.
Alternatively, don't try to write low-level networking code yourself. There are a number of higher-level APIs that use various serialization techniques to encode whole objects and handle all of the lower-level network transport mechanics for you, allowing you to concentrate on the value-added features in your own program, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.

C# TCPClient/Socket writing not throwing exception

I have many printers I am trying to connect to over tcp connections. I am trying to verify that my TcpClient is still connected to update a GUI. I am trying to write to a socket to make sure its still connected. I get no exception even if the cable is unplugged I tried all of the suggestions here MSDN_Fourm
I am receiving the expected exception after I try to check the printer statuses
psudo-code
client is a TCPClient that has been connected previously
private bool FuntionPsudo(){
try{
if(client.Connected){
byte[] buf = new byte[1];
client.Client.Send(buf, 0,0);
client.GetStream().Write(buf,0,0);
if(client.Client.Receive(buf,SocketFlags.Peek)==0)
return false;
return true;
}
}
catch(Exception){
return false;
}
return false;
}
FuntionPsudo returns: true
cable unplugged
FuntionPsudo returns: true
FuntionPsudo returns: true
check printer status
FuntionPsudo returns: false
Thanks in advance for any help on why this might be happening and/or how to fix it

After several failed attempts I realised 'unplug-the-cable' type of connecting detection isn't that easy. At the same time I found that there are a couple of tricks you can do to check if the server has closed the connection, all without needing to send hearbeat kind of messages.
Here is what I came up with that I could say it works most of the time (especially with cable disconnects it's not easy to figure out if connection is still up)
static class SocketUtils
{
public static bool IsConnected(this Socket socket)
{
return IsSocketConnected(socket) && IsNetworkConnected(socket);
}
public static void KeepAlive(this Socket socket, int pollSeconds)
{
socket.SetSocketOption(SocketOptionLevel.Socket, SocketOptionName.KeepAlive, true);
SetIOControlKeepAlive(socket, (uint)(pollSeconds * 1000), 1);
}
static bool IsNetworkConnected(this Socket socket)
{
try
{
return socket.Send(new byte[0]) == 0;
}
catch (SocketException) { return false; }
}
static bool IsSocketConnected(this Socket socket)
{
try
{
return !(socket.Poll(1, SelectMode.SelectRead) && socket.Available == 0);
}
catch (SocketException) { return false; }
}
static void SetIOControlKeepAlive(Socket socket, uint time, uint interval)
{
var sizeOfUint = Marshal.SizeOf(time);
var inOptionValues = new byte[sizeOfUint * 3];
BitConverter.GetBytes((uint)(time == 0 ? 0UL : 1UL)).CopyTo(inOptionValues, 0);
BitConverter.GetBytes(time).CopyTo(inOptionValues, sizeOfUint);
BitConverter.GetBytes(interval).CopyTo(inOptionValues, sizeOfUint * 2);
socket.IOControl(IOControlCode.KeepAliveValues, inOptionValues, null);
}
}
Here is how you can use it:
var tcpClient = new TcpClient();
tcpClient.Connect("192.168.2.20", 3000);
// set this to a low value to detect cable disconnects early
tcpClient.Client.KeepAlive(30); // 30 seconds
Console.WriteLine("Connected..");
while (true)
{
Thread.Sleep(500);
Console.WriteLine(tcpClient.Client.IsConnected());
}
I must add that I shamelessly copied some code from Samuel's answer about checking client disconnects and Greg Dean's answer about setting keep-alive on the socket, so some credit should go to them as well ;)

You can only tell whether you are still connected or not by sending something and receiving something back. Just pushing bytes out into the network always works even if they go into a black hole. The Connected property is unreliable and almost all code using it is wrong.
Send something to the printer and receive a reply. Or, create a new connection (which internally will send and receive TCP control packets without data).

When dealing with transport layers like the TCP protocol you need to use it like a 'Walkie-Talkie'. You need to decide when and for how long to talk. In other words the communication breaks down when both parties talk or listen at the same time.
Here is an example from the book C# in a Nutshell:
using System;
using System.IO;
using System.Net;
using System.Net.Sockets;
using System.Threading;
class TcpDemo
{
static void Main()
{
new Thread(Server).Start(); // Run server method concurrently.
Thread.Sleep(500); // Give server time to start.
Client();
}
static void Client()
{
using (TcpClient client = new TcpClient("localhost", 51111 ))
using(NetworkStream n = client.GetStream())
{
BinaryWriter w = new BinaryWriter(n);
w.Write("Hello");
w.Flush();
Console.WriteLine(new BinaryReader(n).ReadString());
}
}
static void Server()
{
TcpListener listener = new TcpListener(IPAddress.Any, 51111);
listener.Start();
using(TcpClient c = listener.AcceptTcpClient())
using(NetworkStream n = c.GetStream())
{
string msg = new BinaryReader(n).ReadString();
BinaryWriter w = new BinaryWriter(n);
w.Write(msg + " right back!");
w.Flush();
}
listener.Stop();
}
}

I have same this propblem for reconnect.
I write server in java and client in c# (unity)
java-java throw exception ok
java-c# : both of them throw exception in some case.
I have the best way for perfomance server
I resolve by the way : write jar client and use ikvm export to dll (copy jar to ikvm/bin). Create library in c# and reference dll + ikvm.core.dll + .../manage/unityEngine.dll ==> copy Cshapr/bin/Debug to UnityProJect/Asset
--> it run ok but speed over 37M to build 😭
If you want to have a small client --> network with no reconnect 😅

Redis Booksleeve client, ResultCompletionMode.PreserveOrder not working

When I print out received messages on the Console the displayed messages are all messed up, each message containing 5 string sub-messages that are printed on the Console before control reverts back to the incoming message callback. I strongly assume this is because the incoming message event is raised async in Booksleeve?
I refer to the following post, How does PubSub work in BookSleeve/ Redis?, where the author, Marc Gravell, pointed to the ability to force sync reception by setting Completion Mode to "PreserveOrder". I have done that, tried before and after connecting the client. Neither seems to work.
Any ideas how I can receive messages and print them on the console in the exact order they were sent? I only have one single publisher in this case.
Thanks
Edit:
Below some code snippets to show how I send messages and the Booksleeve wrapper I quickly wrote.
Here the client (I have a similar Client2 that receives the messages and checks order, but I omitted it as it seems trivial).
class Client1
{
const string ClientId = "Client1";
private static Messaging Client { get; set; }
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
var settings = new MessagingSettings("127.0.0.1", 6379, -1, 60, 5000, 1000);
Client = new Messaging(ClientId, settings, ReceiveMessage);
Client.Connect();
Console.WriteLine("Press key to start sending messages...");
Console.ReadLine();
for (int index = 1; index <= 100; index++)
{
//I turned this off because I want to preserve
//the order even if messages are sent in rapit succession
//Thread.Sleep(5);
var msg = new MessageEnvelope("Client1", "Client2", index.ToString());
Client.SendOneWayMessage(msg);
}
Console.WriteLine("Press key to exit....");
Console.ReadLine();
Client.Disconnect();
}
private static void ReceiveMessage(MessageEnvelope msg)
{
Console.WriteLine("Message Received");
}
}
Here the relevant code snippets of the library:
public void Connect()
{
RequestForReplyMessageIds = new ConcurrentBag<string>();
Connection = new RedisConnection(Settings.HostName, Settings.Port, Settings.IoTimeOut);
Connection.Closed += OnConnectionClosed;
Connection.CompletionMode = ResultCompletionMode.PreserveOrder;
Connection.SetKeepAlive(Settings.PingAliveSeconds);
try
{
if (Connection.Open().Wait(Settings.RequestTimeOutMilliseconds))
{
//Subscribe to own ClientId Channel ID
SubscribeToChannel(ClientId);
}
else
{
throw new Exception("Could not connect Redis client to server");
}
}
catch
{
throw new Exception("Could not connect Redis Client to Server");
}
}
public void SendOneWayMessage(MessageEnvelope message)
{
SendMessage(message);
}
private void SendMessage(MessageEnvelope msg)
{
//Connection.Publish(msg.To, msg.GetByteArray());
Connection.Publish(msg.To, msg.GetByteArray()).Wait();
}
private void IncomingChannelSubscriptionMessage(string channel, byte[] body)
{
var msg = MessageEnvelope.GetMessageEnvelope(body);
//forward received message
ReceivedMessageCallback(msg);
//release requestMessage if returned msgId matches
string msgId = msg.MessageId;
if (RequestForReplyMessageIds.Contains(msgId))
{
RequestForReplyMessageIds.TryTake(out msgId);
}
}
public void SubscribeToChannel(string channelName)
{
if (!ChannelSubscriptions.Contains(channelName))
{
var subscriberChannel = Connection.GetOpenSubscriberChannel();
subscriberChannel.Subscribe(channelName, IncomingChannelSubscriptionMessage).Wait();
ChannelSubscriptions.Add(channelName);
}
}

Without seeing exactly how you are checking for this, it is hard to comment, but what I can say is that any threading oddity is going to be hard to track down and fix, and is therefore very unlikely to be addressed in BookSleeve, given that it has been succeeded. However! It will absolutely be checked in StackExchange.Redis. Here's the a rig I've put together in SE.Redis (and, embarrassingly, it did highlight a slight bug, fixed in next release, so .222 or later); output first:
Subscribing...
Sending (preserved order)...
Allowing time for delivery etc...
Checking...
Received: 500 in 2993ms
Out of order: 0
Sending (any order)...
Allowing time for delivery etc...
Checking...
Received: 500 in 341ms
Out of order: 306
(keep in mind that 500 x 5ms is 2500, so we should not be amazed by the 2993ms number, or the 341ms - this is mainly the cost of the Thread.Sleep we have added to nudge the thread-pool into overlapping them; if we remove that, both loops take 0ms, which is awesome - but we can't see the overlapping issue so convincingly)
As you can see, the first run has the correct order output; the second run has mixed order, but it ten times faster. And that is when doing trivial work; for real work it would be even more noticeable. As always, it is a trade-off.
Here's the test rig:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Threading;
using StackExchange.Redis;
static class Program
{
static void Main()
{
using (var conn = ConnectionMultiplexer.Connect("localhost"))
{
var sub = conn.GetSubscriber();
var received = new List<int>();
Console.WriteLine("Subscribing...");
const int COUNT = 500;
sub.Subscribe("foo", (channel, message) =>
{
lock (received)
{
received.Add((int)message);
if (received.Count == COUNT)
Monitor.PulseAll(received); // wake the test rig
}
Thread.Sleep(5); // you kinda need to be slow, otherwise
// the pool will end up doing everything on one thread
});
SendAndCheck(conn, received, COUNT, true);
SendAndCheck(conn, received, COUNT, false);
}
Console.WriteLine("Press any key");
Console.ReadLine();
}
static void SendAndCheck(ConnectionMultiplexer conn, List<int> received, int quantity, bool preserveAsyncOrder)
{
conn.PreserveAsyncOrder = preserveAsyncOrder;
var sub = conn.GetSubscriber();
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine("Sending ({0})...", (preserveAsyncOrder ? "preserved order" : "any order"));
lock (received)
{
received.Clear();
// we'll also use received as a wait-detection mechanism; sneaky
// note: this does not do any cheating;
// it all goes to the server and back
for (int i = 0; i < quantity; i++)
{
sub.Publish("foo", i);
}
Console.WriteLine("Allowing time for delivery etc...");
var watch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
if (!Monitor.Wait(received, 10000))
{
Console.WriteLine("Timed out; expect less data");
}
watch.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Checking...");
lock (received)
{
Console.WriteLine("Received: {0} in {1}ms", received.Count, watch.ElapsedMilliseconds);
int wrongOrder = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < Math.Min(quantity, received.Count); i++)
{
if (received[i] != i) wrongOrder++;
}
Console.WriteLine("Out of order: " + wrongOrder);
}
}
}
}

Serial Port Read C# Console

Hi to all i am new here and i have heard a lot about this website that it really helps you out. Hope you will be able to help me out!.
I have a very simple program which its only aim is to read from a serial port and prints it on the console window in C# for 2000 times.
I am just turning a variable resistor on a micro-controller that's all
Here below is the code
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.IO.Ports;
namespace Testing_serial_v3._0
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string buff;
SerialPort port = new SerialPort("COM4", 9600, Parity.None, 8, StopBits.One);
port.Open();
for (int i = 0; i < 2000; i++)
{
buff = port.ReadLine();
Console.WriteLine(buff);
//Console.ReadLine();
}
}
}
}
But there is a funny thing happening in this code. When the console readline is commented as shown in the code above the value from the port changes as i turn the knob of the variable resistor. So this means it is working good.
On the other hand if i make the readline happen so that after each value i have to press a key the port reads the current value and even though i change the knob and press enter again the value will remain the first as if it is not resetting at all?
Do you have to include any other command lines so that the port will reset?
Hope you understand my problem and any other questions you need to know please don't hesitate i really need this problem fixed ASAP.
Many thanks and regards

The data coming through the port is a stream - when you read, you are gradually consuming the stream. You are not seeing "the most recent value", you are seeing "the next value in the stream". When you add the read-line, you add a delay which means there is a large backlog of data. It isn't that "it stayed the same"... Simply that you haven't read to the end (and the more recent values) yet.
In many cases, it would be preferable to deal with the network IO via an async callback so that reading values from the stream is not tied into delays like human data entry. That may involve some knowledge of threading, though.

You could also use a Task to read it in a separate thread and observe it there, kind of what #Marc Gravel mentions. You just have to wait until the task is finished or press enter to cancel it manually. Just another example of offloading the task to another thread.
Here's an example:
using System;
using System.IO;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace ReadStreamAsyncTask
{
internal class Program
{
private static CancellationToken _cancelTaskSignal;
private static byte[] _serialPortBytes;
private static MemoryStream _streamOfBytesFromPort;
private static CancellationTokenSource _cancelTaskSignalSource;
private static void Main()
{
_serialPortBytes = Encoding.ASCII.GetBytes("Mimic a bunch of bytes from the serial port");
_streamOfBytesFromPort = new MemoryStream(_serialPortBytes);
_streamOfBytesFromPort.Position = 0;
_cancelTaskSignalSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
_cancelTaskSignal = _cancelTaskSignalSource.Token; // Used to request cancel the task if needed.
var readFromSerialPort = Task.Factory.StartNew(ReadStream, _cancelTaskSignal);
readFromSerialPort.Wait(3000); // wait until task is complete(or errors) OR 3 seconds
Console.WriteLine("Press enter to cancel the task");
_cancelTaskSignalSource.Cancel();
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static void ReadStream()
{
// start your loop here to read from the port and print to console
Console.WriteLine("Port read task started");
int bytesToReadCount = Buffer.ByteLength(_serialPortBytes);
var localBuffer = new byte[bytesToReadCount];
int bytesRead = 0;
bool finishedReading = false;
try
{
while (!finishedReading)
{
_cancelTaskSignal.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
bytesRead += _streamOfBytesFromPort.Read(localBuffer, 0, bytesToReadCount);
finishedReading = (bytesRead - bytesToReadCount == 0);
}
}
catch (TaskCanceledException)
{
Console.WriteLine("You cancelled the task");
}
Console.WriteLine(Encoding.ASCII.GetString(localBuffer));
Console.WriteLine("Done reading stream");
}
}
}

You are sending thousands of data from micro-controller to the serial port (with delay of 1ms for ex.), which makes the buffer of the serial port filled with same values! If you read it one by one by pressing enter key, you are reading the first received ones...
I think if you want to read your data in computer by "Enter" key, you should send the date from micro-controller by a push button! It means you set the value by resistor, press the push button, the micro sends "One Byte" to the computer. You press the enter on the computer and let your computer read just "One Byte" from the serial port!
Also some modification to your code:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int buff; // string to int
SerialPort port = new SerialPort("COM4", 9600, Parity.None, 8, StopBits.One);
port.Open();
for (int i = 0; i < 2000; i++)
{
Console.ReadLine(); // wait for the Enter key
buff = port.ReadByte(); // read a byte
Console.WriteLine(buff);
}
}
I hope this will work for you! :)

How to use UdpClient.BeginReceive in a loop

I want to do this
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++ )
{
Byte[] receiveBytes = receivingUdpClient.Receive(ref RemoteIpEndPoint);
}
But instead of using UdpClient.Receive, I have to use UdpClient.BeginReceive. The problem is, how do I do that? There aren't a lot of samples using BeginReceive, and the MSDN example is not helping at all. Should I use BeginReceive, or just create it under a separate thread?
I consistently get ObjectDisposedException exception. I only get the first data sent. The next data will throw exception.
public class UdpReceiver
{
private UdpClient _client;
public System.Net.Sockets.UdpClient Client
{
get { return _client; }
set { _client = value; }
}
private IPEndPoint _endPoint;
public System.Net.IPEndPoint EndPoint
{
get { return _endPoint; }
set { _endPoint = value; }
}
private int _packetCount;
public int PacketCount
{
get { return _packetCount; }
set { _packetCount = value; }
}
private string _buffers;
public string Buffers
{
get { return _buffers; }
set { _buffers = value; }
}
private Int32 _counter;
public System.Int32 Counter
{
get { return _counter; }
set { _counter = value; }
}
private Int32 _maxTransmission;
public System.Int32 MaxTransmission
{
get { return _maxTransmission; }
set { _maxTransmission = value; }
}
public UdpReceiver(UdpClient udpClient, IPEndPoint ipEndPoint, string buffers, Int32 counter, Int32 maxTransmission)
{
_client = udpClient;
_endPoint = ipEndPoint;
_buffers = buffers;
_counter = counter;
_maxTransmission = maxTransmission;
}
public void StartReceive()
{
_packetCount = 0;
_client.BeginReceive(new AsyncCallback(Callback), null);
}
private void Callback(IAsyncResult result)
{
try
{
byte[] buffer = _client.EndReceive(result, ref _endPoint);
// Process buffer
MainWindow.Log(Encoding.ASCII.GetString(buffer));
_packetCount += 1;
if (_packetCount < _maxTransmission)
{
_client.BeginReceive(new AsyncCallback(Callback), null);
}
}
catch (ObjectDisposedException ex)
{
MainWindow.Log(ex.ToString());
}
catch (SocketException ex)
{
MainWindow.Log(ex.ToString());
}
catch (System.Exception ex)
{
MainWindow.Log(ex.ToString());
}
}
}
What gives?
By the way, the general idea is:
Create tcpclient manager.
Start sending/receiving data using udpclient.
When all data has been sent, tcpclient manager will signal receiver that all data has been sent, and udpclient connection should be closed.

It would seem that UdpClient.BeginReceive() and UdpClient.EndReceive() are not well implemented/understood. And certainly compared to how the TcpListener is implemented, are a lot harder to use.
There are several things that you can do to make using the UdpClient.Receive() work better for you. Firstly, setting timeouts on the underlying socket Client will enable control to fall through (to an exception), allowing the flow of control to continue or be looped as you like. Secondly, by creating the UDP listener on a new thread (the creation of which I haven't shown), you can avoid the semi-blocking effect of the UdpClient.Receive() function and you can effectively abort that thread later if you do it correctly.
The code below is in three parts. The first and last parts should be in your main loop at the entry and exit points respectively. The second part should be in the new thread that you created.
A simple example:
// Define this globally, on your main thread
UdpClient listener = null;
// ...
// ...
// Create a new thread and run this code:
IPEndPoint endPoint = new IPEndPoint(IPAddress.Any, 9999);
byte[] data = new byte[0];
string message = "";
listener.Client.SendTimeout = 5000;
listener.Client.ReceiveTimeout = 5000;
listener = new UdpClient(endPoint);
while(true)
{
try
{
data = listener.Receive(ref endPoint);
message = Encoding.ASCII.GetString(data);
}
catch(System.Net.Socket.SocketException ex)
{
if (ex.ErrorCode != 10060)
{
// Handle the error. 10060 is a timeout error, which is expected.
}
}
// Do something else here.
// ...
//
// If your process is eating CPU, you may want to sleep briefly
// System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(10);
}
// ...
// ...
// Back on your main thread, when it's exiting, run this code
// in order to completely kill off the UDP thread you created above:
listener.Close();
thread.Close();
thread.Abort();
thread.Join(5000);
thread = null;
In addition to all this, you can also check UdpClient.Available > 0 in order to determine if any UDP requests are queued prior to executing UdpClient.Receive() - this completely removes the blocking aspect. I do suggest that you try this with caution as this behaviour does not appear in the Microsoft documentation, but does seem to work.
Note:
The MSDN exmaple code you may have found while researching this problem requires an additional user defined class - UdpState. This is not a .NET library class. This seems to confuse a lot of people when they are researching this problem.
The timeouts do not strictly have to be set to enable your app to exit completely, but they will allow you to do other things in that loop instead of blocking forever.
The listener.Close() command is important because it forces the UdpClient to throw an exception and exit the loop, allowing Thread.Abort() to get handled. Without this you may not be able to kill off the listener thread properly until it times out or a UDP packet is received causing the code to continue past the UdpClient.Receive() block.
Just to add to this priceless answer, here's a working and tested code fragment. (Here in a Unity3D context but of course for any c#.)
// minmal flawless UDP listener per PretorianNZ
using System.Collections;
using System;
using System.Net.Sockets;
using System.Net;
using System.Threading;
void Start()
{
listenThread = new Thread (new ThreadStart (SimplestReceiver));
listenThread.Start();
}
private Thread listenThread;
private UdpClient listenClient;
private void SimplestReceiver()
{
Debug.Log(",,,,,,,,,,,, Overall listener thread started.");
IPEndPoint listenEndPoint = new IPEndPoint(IPAddress.Any, 1260);
listenClient = new UdpClient(listenEndPoint);
Debug.Log(",,,,,,,,,,,, listen client started.");
while(true)
{
Debug.Log(",,,,, listen client listening");
try
{
Byte[] data = listenClient.Receive(ref listenEndPoint);
string message = Encoding.ASCII.GetString(data);
Debug.Log("Listener heard: " +message);
}
catch( SocketException ex)
{
if (ex.ErrorCode != 10060)
Debug.Log("a more serious error " +ex.ErrorCode);
else
Debug.Log("expected timeout error");
}
Thread.Sleep(10); // tune for your situation, can usually be omitted
}
}
void OnDestroy() { CleanUp(); }
void OnDisable() { CleanUp(); }
// be certain to catch ALL possibilities of exit in your environment,
// or else the thread will typically live on beyond the app quitting.
void CleanUp()
{
Debug.Log ("Cleanup for listener...");
// note, consider carefully that it may not be running
listenClient.Close();
Debug.Log(",,,,, listen client correctly stopped");
listenThread.Abort();
listenThread.Join(5000);
listenThread = null;
Debug.Log(",,,,, listener thread correctly stopped");
}

I think you should not use it in a loop but instead whenever the BeginReceive callback is called you call BeginReceive once more and you keep a public variable for count if you want to limit the number to 100.

have look at MSDN first. They provide good example.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.net.sockets.udpclient.beginreceive.aspx

I would do network communication on a background thread, so that it doesn't block anything else in your application.
The issue with BeginReceive is that you must call EndReceive at some point (otherwise you have wait handles just sitting around) - and calling EndReceive will block until the receive is finished. This is why it is easier to just put the communication on another thread.

You have to do network operations, file manipulations and such things that are dependent to other things rather than your own program on another thread (or task) because they may freeze your program. The reason for that is that your code executes sequentially.
You have used it in a loop which is not fine. Whenever BeginRecieve callback is invoked you should call it again. Take a look at the following code:
public static bool messageReceived = false;
public static void ReceiveCallback(IAsyncResult ar)
{
UdpClient u = (UdpClient)((UdpState)(ar.AsyncState)).u;
IPEndPoint e = (IPEndPoint)((UdpState)(ar.AsyncState)).e;
Byte[] receiveBytes = u.EndReceive(ar, ref e);
string receiveString = Encoding.ASCII.GetString(receiveBytes);
Console.WriteLine("Received: {0}", receiveString);
messageReceived = true;
}
public static void ReceiveMessages()
{
// Receive a message and write it to the console.
IPEndPoint e = new IPEndPoint(IPAddress.Any, listenPort);
UdpClient u = new UdpClient(e);
UdpState s = new UdpState();
s.e = e;
s.u = u;
Console.WriteLine("listening for messages");
u.BeginReceive(new AsyncCallback(ReceiveCallback), s);
// Do some work while we wait for a message. For this example,
// we'll just sleep
while (!messageReceived)
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
}