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

Does not work with ESPAsyncWebServer #8

Open
kdobrev opened this issue Apr 7, 2017 · 6 comments
Open

Does not work with ESPAsyncWebServer #8

kdobrev opened this issue Apr 7, 2017 · 6 comments

Comments

@kdobrev
Copy link

kdobrev commented Apr 7, 2017

Hi, I would like to use the ftp server, but I am using ESPAsyncWebServer. The ftp tries to connect but then stops and does not do anything or issues a random error (username, password or something else).

The ESPAsyncWebServer does not use server.handleClient(); in the loop(). Do have any idea how can be done so that both work together?

@nailbuster
Copy link
Owner

I doubt it would work with ASyncWebServer. Don't know if you can mix both types in the same project.

Are you sure you put ftpServer.handleFTP(); in your loop?

if you want checkout my AsyncWebServer project that has integrated FileBrowser(upload/delete to spiffs)... doesn't use ftp though. https://github.com/nailbuster/myWebServerAsync

@kdobrev
Copy link
Author

kdobrev commented Apr 7, 2017

Yes, I have the ftpSrv.handleFTP(); My goal is to get data out SPIFFS.

@nailbuster
Copy link
Owner

Try out my WebServerProject.... Once started you just go to http://192.168.1.xx/browse that will bring up an html SPIFFs browser/upload/download/delete

@pdfelen
Copy link

pdfelen commented Aug 4, 2017

For me it works, but on heavy traffic there will be multiple retries. The same with normal WiFi client.
Rewriting WiFi client to Async client should not be such a big job....
Let's see....

@pdfelen
Copy link

pdfelen commented Sep 13, 2017

An update:
I have been doing some experiments using ESPAsyncTCP module (TCP part of ESPAsyncWebServer) and have it operational including login and first directory listing. Conclusion so far: too much structural changes are needed so far. As result I don't see an option to create 1 version that can easily serve both, without restructuring the whole code into separate control, data and event handler.
I will need verify some findings and will update here on that.

@pdfelen
Copy link

pdfelen commented Sep 22, 2017

Update:
Started over with another concept. Might be interesting... Keep you posted.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants