Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Added support for Ping Timeouts #214

Closed

Conversation

philip-peterson
Copy link
Contributor

In order to send PINGs, as far as I can tell, we must know the name of our host,
so I've also added a mechanism for accepting the "yourhost" event and storing
the name received, then using that for the pings.

Of course, we might get a timeout after connection and waiting for the "yourhost"
event, so there's a timer there as well.

In order to send PINGs, as far as I can tell, we must know the name of our host,
so I've also added a mechanism for accepting the "yourhost" event and storing
the name received, then using that for the pings.

Of course, we might get a timeout after connection and waiting for the "yourhost"
event, so there's a timer there as well.
@osslate
Copy link
Collaborator

osslate commented May 29, 2014

I'm not sure as to what purpose the 002 timer serves. If this is still an issue that you're struggling with, I'd appreciate a follow up. Closing for now.

@osslate osslate closed this May 29, 2014
@philip-peterson
Copy link
Contributor Author

The 002 timer is so that if in-between connecting to the server and getting a 002 message, hostIdTimeout seconds pass, then a timeout event is triggered. Otherwise, if the connection dropped between the two events, the bot would just hang indefinitely...

After the 002 message has been received, we can start sending PINGs and getting PONGs (using the normal ping timer).

dub4u added a commit to dub4u/the_yaya that referenced this pull request Oct 18, 2014
@philip-peterson
Copy link
Contributor Author

@martynsmith Any chance of reopening this issue? I realize it probably just got lost in the noise back during the project restructuring, but there seems to be some demand for it (see #375 )

@ghost ghost mentioned this pull request Sep 4, 2015
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Sep 4, 2015

Can this be reopened? Thanks!

@jirwin jirwin reopened this Sep 4, 2015
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Sep 9, 2015

@philip-peterson any chance you could try to re-merge and resolve the conflicts?

@philip-peterson
Copy link
Contributor Author

I've been busy lately, but maybe someday soon... in the meantime if anyone else wants to migrate the changes, I'd encourage it.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Oct 1, 2015

I spent hours learning git and haven't learned how to merge yet, or i would.

@jirwin
Copy link
Collaborator

jirwin commented Mar 26, 2016

This was fixed in #418.

@jirwin jirwin closed this Mar 26, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants