You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
What do you think about introducing a new base class for servers? One based on what is actually useful. It would be more a guide than a useful base class, but for Client and UDP the base classes do an excellent job for consistency of the networking API implementations.
It doesn't require the confusing available method and the never used print-to-all-clients' functionality.
It has parameter port for begin, it doesn't have to be in constructor.
The library authors could ifdef their server class declaration.
class EthernetServer
#ifdef CORE_HAS_SERVERNEW
: public ServerNew<EthernetClient>
#endif
{
or even
class EthernetServer :
#ifdef CORE_HAS_SERVERNEW
public ServerNew<EthernetClient>,
#endif
public Server
{
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
What do you think about introducing a new base class for servers? One based on what is actually useful. It would be more a guide than a useful base class, but for Client and UDP the base classes do an excellent job for consistency of the networking API implementations.
It doesn't require the confusing
available
method and the never used print-to-all-clients' functionality.It has parameter port for
begin
, it doesn't have to be in constructor.The library authors could ifdef their server class declaration.
or even
would work
Here is an overview of Server implementation in libraries
https://github.com/JAndrassy/Arduino-Networking-API/blob/main/ArduinoNetAPILibs.md#server-class
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions