Detecting socket close with Python's asyncore and smtpd - python

Python newbie here. I'm using asyncore and smtpd to write an email server. Everything seems to work except that I can't figure out how to detect when/if the connecting client closes the socket. Also, I can't seem to set a timeout to automatically close connections after inactivity. Here's some example code. CustomSTMPServer.handle_close is never called. And I don't know how to set a timeout that works. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
import smtpd
import asyncore
class CustomSMTPServer(smtpd.SMTPServer):
def handle_accept(self):
pair = self.accept()
if pair is None:
pass
conn, addr = pair
print 'Incoming connection from %s' % addr[0]
channel = smtpd.SMTPChannel(self, conn, addr)
def handle_close(self):
print 'Received close'
def process_message(self, peer, mailfrom, rcpttos, data):
print 'Receiving message from:', peer
print 'Message addressed from:', mailfrom
print 'Message addressed to :', rcpttos
print 'Message length :', len(data)
return
server = CustomSMTPServer(('127.0.0.1', 1025), None)
asyncore.loop()

Related

Multithreading sockets with a central relay-like server

I have previously managed to implement a client-server socket script which relays messages between a single client and the server and I'm now trying to implement a multiple-client system.
More specifically, I would like to use the server as some sort of medium between two clients which retrieves information from one client and relays it to the other. I had tried to attach and send the port number of the receiving client and then extract it from the message on the server side. After that, I would try and send it to whatever socket with that port number but I ran into some trouble (as port numbers are determined at the point of sending I believe?) so now I am simply just trying to relay the sent message back to all clients. However, the problem is that the message is only being sent to the server and not being relayed to the desired client.
I had previously tried to implement a peer-to-peer system but I ran into trouble so I decided to take a step back and do this instead.
Server.py:
import socket, _thread, threading
import tkinter as tk
SERVERPORT = 8600
HOST = 'localhost'
class Server():
def __init__(self):
self.Connected = True
self.ServerSocket = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
self.ServerSocket.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET, socket.SO_REUSEADDR,1)
self.ServerSocket.bind((HOST, SERVERPORT))
self.ServerSocket.listen(2)
self.Clients = []
def Listen(self):
print('Server is now running')
while self.Connected:
ClientSocket, Address = self.ServerSocket.accept()
self.Clients.append(Address)
print('\nNew user connected', Address)
t = threading.Thread(target=self.NewClient, args=(ClientSocket,
Address))
t.daemon = True
t.start()
self.Socket.close()
def NewClient(self, ClientSocket, Address):
while self.Connected:
if ClientSocket:
try:
ReceivedMsg = ClientSocket.recv(4096)
print('Message received from', Address, ':', ReceivedMsg)
self.Acknowledge(ClientSocket, Address)
if ReceivedMsg.decode('utf8').split()[-1] != 'message':
ReceiverPort = self.GetSendPort(ReceivedMsg)
self.SendToClient(ClientSocket,ReceivedMsg,ReceiverPort)
except:
print('Connection closed')
raise Exception
ClientSocket.close()
def Acknowledge(self, Socket, Address):
Socket.sendto(b'The server received your message', Address)
def GetSendPort(self, Msg):
MsgDigest = Msg.decode('utf8').split()
return int(MsgDigest[-1])
def SendToClient(self, Socket, Msg, Port):
Addr = (HOST, Msg)
for Client in self.Clients:
Socket.sendto(Msg, Client)
def NewThread(Func, *args):
if len(args) == 1:
t = threading.Thread(target=Func, args=(args,))
elif len(args) > 1:
t = threading.Thread(target=Func, args=args)
else:
t = threading.Thread(target=Func)
t.daemon = True
t.start()
t.join()
Host = Server()
NewThread(Host.Listen)
And the Client(.py):
import socket, threading
import tkinter as tk
Username = 'Ernest'
PORT = 8601
OtherPORT = 8602
SERVERPORT = 8600
HOST = '127.0.0.1'
class Client():
def __init__(self, Username):
self.Connected, self.Username = False, Username
self.Socket = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
def Connect(self):
print('Trying to connect')
try:
self.Socket.connect((HOST, SERVERPORT))
self.Connected = True
print(self.Username, 'connected to server')
Msg = MsgUI(self.Username)
Msg.Display()
except Exception:
print('Could not connect to server')
raise Exception
def SendMsg(self):
if self.Connected:
Msg = '{} sent you a message {}'.format(self.Username, OtherPORT)
self.Socket.sendall(bytes(Msg, encoding='utf8'))
self.GetResponse()
def GetResponse(self, *args):
AckMsg = '\n{} received the message'.format(self.Username)
NMsg = '\n{} did not receive the message'.format(self.Username)
if self.Connected:
Msg = self.Socket.recv(4096)
print(Msg)
if Msg:
self.Socket.sendall(bytes(AckMsg, encoding='utf8'))
else:
self.Socket.sendall(bytes(NMsg, encoding='utf8'))
class MsgUI():
def __init__(self, Username):
self.Username = Username
self.entry = tk.Entry(win)
self.sendbtn = tk.Button(win, text='send', command=Peer.SendMsg)
def Display(self):
self.entry.grid()
self.sendbtn.grid()
win.mainloop()
win = tk.Tk()
Peer = Client(Username)
Peer.Connect()
I want a message to be sent whenever the user presses the send button in the tkinter window, but at the same time, it is continually 'listening' to see if it received any messages.
I also previously tried to run the GetResponse method in the Client in another thread and instead of if self.Connected I used while self.Connected and it still didn't work.
UPDATE
After some helpful comments, I have edited the two files as such:
The server now holds the two sockets for each client which is run first. The server file is imported into the client file as a module. Each client file is then run and each client runs a function in the server file, requesting to use the socket. If the request is allowed (i.e. no error was thrown), the socket is connected, added to a set of clients stored in the server file and then returned to the client file. The client then uses this socket to send and receive messages.
Server.py
import socket, _thread, threading
import tkinter as tk
SERVERPORT = 8600
HOST = 'localhost'
class Server():
def __init__(self):
self.Connected = True
self.ServerSocket = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
self.ServerSocket.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET, socket.SO_REUSEADDR,1)
self.ServerSocket.bind((HOST, SERVERPORT))
self.ServerSocket.listen(2)
self.Clients = {}
def ConnectClient(self, Username, Port):
Socket = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
self.Clients[Username] = [Socket, Port, False]
try:
self.Clients[Username][0].connect((HOST, SERVERPORT))
self.Clients[Username][2] = True
print('Opened port for user', Username)
return Socket
except Exception:
print('Could not open port for user', Username)
raise Exception
def Listen(self):
print('Server is now running')
while self.Connected:
ClientSocket, Address = self.ServerSocket.accept()
print('\nNew user connected', Address)
t = threading.Thread(target=self.NewClient, args=(ClientSocket,
Address))
t.daemon = True
t.start()
self.Socket.close()
def NewClient(self, ClientSocket, Address):
while self.Connected:
if ClientSocket:
try:
ReceivedMsg = ClientSocket.recv(4096)
if b'attempting to connect to the server' in ReceivedMsg:
ClientSocket.send(b'You are now connected to the server')
else:
print('Message received from', Address, ':',ReceivedMsg)
#self.Acknowledge(ClientSocket, Address)
ReceiverPort = self.GetSendPort(ReceivedMsg)
if ReceiverPort != None:
self.SendToClient(ClientSocket,ReceivedMsg,
ReceiverPort)
except:
print('Connection closed')
raise Exception
ClientSocket.close()
def Acknowledge(self, Socket, Address):
Socket.sendto(b'The server received your message', Address)
def GetSendPort(self, Msg):
MsgDigest = Msg.decode('utf8').split()
try:
Port = int(MsgDigest[-1])
except ValueError:
Port = None
return Port
def SendToClient(self, Socket, Msg, Port):
Addr = (HOST, Port)
Receiver = None
for Client, Vars in self.Clients.items():
if Vars[1] == Port:
Receiver = Client
self.Clients[Receiver][0].sendto(Msg, Addr)
def NewThread(Func, *args):
if len(args) == 1:
t = threading.Thread(target=Func, args=(args,))
elif len(args) > 1:
t = threading.Thread(target=Func, args=args)
else:
t = threading.Thread(target=Func)
t.daemon = True
t.start()
t.join()
Host = Server()
if __name__ == '__main__':
NewThread(Host.Listen)
And Client.py
import socket, threading, Server
import tkinter as tk
Username = 'Ernest'
PORT = 8601
OtherPORT = 8602
SERVERPORT = 8600
HOST = '127.0.0.1'
class Client():
def __init__(self, Username):
self.Connected, self.Username = False, Username
def Connect(self):
print('Requesting to connect to server')
try:
self.Socket = Server.Host.ConnectClient(self.Username, PORT)
self.Connected = Server.Host.Clients[self.Username][2]
Msg = '{} is attempting to connect to the server'.format(self.Username)
self.Socket.sendall(bytes(Msg, encoding='utf8'))
ReceivedMsg = self.Socket.recv(4096)
print(ReceivedMsg)
Msg = MsgUI(self.Username)
Msg.Display()
except Exception:
print('Could not connect to server')
raise Exception
def SendMsg(self):
try:
if self.Connected:
Msg = '{} sent you a message {}'.format(self.Username,OtherPORT)
self.Socket.sendall(bytes(Msg, encoding='utf8'))
self.GetResponse()
except Exception:
print('Connection closed')
raise Exception
def GetResponse(self, *args):
AckMsg = '\n{} received the message'.format(self.Username)
NMsg = '\n{} did not receive the message'.format(self.Username)
if self.Connected:
Msg = self.Socket.recv(4096)
print(Msg)
if Msg:
self.Socket.sendall(bytes(AckMsg, encoding='utf8'))
else:
self.Socket.sendall(bytes(NMsg, encoding='utf8'))
class MsgUI():
def __init__(self, Username):
self.Username = Username
self.entry = tk.Entry(win)
self.sendbtn = tk.Button(win, text='send', command=Peer.SendMsg)
def Display(self):
self.entry.grid()
self.sendbtn.grid()
win.mainloop()
win = tk.Tk()
Peer = Client(Username)
Peer.Connect()
Now the problem is more of a python and scope problem. When trying to relay the message back to the client, I was getting a KeyError as the Clients dictionary was still empty. When making the function call to the server in the client file, it's clear that the update to the dictionary happens in the client file rather than the server file - which is in a different instance. I need a method of changing the contents of the Clients dictionary that is called to action by the client file but takes effect in the server file.
Are you committed to multithreading? Threads don't run concurrently in python ( due to the GIL), and while they are one way to handle concurrent operations, they aren't the only way and usually they're not the best way, unless they're the only way. Consider this code, which doesn't handle failure cases well, but seems to work as a starting point.
import socket, select, Queue
svrsock = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
svrsock.setblocking(0)
svrsock.bind(('', 17654))
svrsock.listen(16)
client_queues = {}
write_ready=[] # we'll update this for clients only that have things in the queue
while client_queues.keys() + [svrsock] :
readable, writable, exceptional = select.select(client_queues.keys() + [svrsock] , write_ready, [])
for rd in readable:
if rd is svrsock: # reading listening socket == accepting connection
conn, addr = svrsock.accept()
print("Connection from {}".format(addr))
conn.setblocking(0)
client_queues[conn] = Queue.Queue()
else:
data = rd.recv(1024)
if data:
# TODO: send to all queues
print("Message from {}".format(rd.getpeername()))
for sock, q in client_queues.iteritems():
q.put("From {}: {}".format( rd.getpeername(), data))
if sock not in write_ready:
write_ready.append(sock)
for rw in writable:
try:
data = client_queues[rw].get_nowait()
rw.send(data)
except Queue.Empty:
write_ready.remove(rw)
continue
The concept is pretty simple. The server accepts connections; each connection (socket) is associated with a queue of pending messages. Each socket that's ready for reading is read from, and its message is added to each client's queue. The recipient client is added into the write_ready list of clients with data pending, if it's not already in there. Then each socket that's ready for writing has its next queued message written to it. If there are no more messages, the recipient is removed from the write_ready list.
This is very easy to orchestrate if you don't use multithreading because all coordination is inherent in the order of the application. With threads it would be more difficult and a lot more code, but probably not more performance due to the gil.
The secret to handling multiple I/O streams concurrently without multithreading is select. In principle it's pretty easy; we pass select() a list of possible sockets for reading, another list of possible sockets for writing, and a final list that for this simplified demo I completely ignore . The results of the select call will include one or more sockets that are actually ready for reading or writing, which allows me to block until one or more sockets are ready for activity. I then process all the sockets ready for activity every pass ( but they've already been filtered down to just those which wouldn't block).
There's a ton still to be done here. I don't cleanup after myself, don't track closed connections, don't handle any exceptions, and so on. but without having to worry about threading and concurrency guarantees, it's pretty easy to start addressing these deficiencies.
Here it is "in action". Here for the client side I use netcat, which is perfect for layer 3 testing without layer 4+ protocols ( in other words, raw tcp so to speak). It simply opens a socket to the given destination and port and sends its stdin through the socket and sends its socket data to stdout, which makes it perfect for demoing this server app!
I also wanted to point out, coupling code between server and client is inadvisable because you won't be able to roll out changes to either without breaking the other. It's ideal to have a "contract" so to speak between server and client and maintain it. Even if you implement the behavior of server and client in the same code base, you should use the tcp communications contract to drive your implementation, not code sharing. Just my 2 cents, but once you start sharing code you often start coupling server/client versions in ways you didn't anticipate.
the server:
$ python ./svr.py
Connection from ('127.0.0.1', 52059)
Connection from ('127.0.0.1', 52061)
Message from ('127.0.0.1', 52061)
Message from ('127.0.0.1', 52059)
Message from ('127.0.0.1', 52059)
First client ( 52059):
$ nc localhost 17654
hello
From ('127.0.0.1', 52061): hello
From ('127.0.0.1', 52059): hello
From ('127.0.0.1', 52059): hello
Second client:
$ nc localhost 17654
From ('127.0.0.1', 52061): hello
hello
From ('127.0.0.1', 52059): hello
hello
From ('127.0.0.1', 52059): hello
If you need more convincing on why select is way more compelling than concurrent execution, consider this: Apache is based on a threading model, in other words, the connections each get a worker thread . nginx is based on a select model, so you can see how much faster that can potentially be. Not to say that nginx is inherently better, as Apache benefits from the threading model because of its heavy use of modules to extend capabilities ( mod_php for example), whereas nginx doesn't have this limitation and can handle all requests from any thread. But the raw performance of nginx is typically considered far higher and far more efficient, and a big reason for this is that it avoids almost all the cpu context switches inherent in apache. It's a valid approach!
A word on scaling. Obviously, this wouldn't scale forever. Neither would a threading model; eventually you run out of threads. A more distributed and high throughput system would likely use a Pub/Sub mechanism of some kind, offloading the client connection tracking and message queueing from the server to a pub/sub data tier and allowing connections to be restored and queued data to be sent, as well as adding multiple servers behind a load balancer. Just throwing it out there. You might be pleasantly surprised how well select can scale ( cpu is so much faster than network anyway that it's likely not the bottleneck).

Best way to associate a player character with a server connection?

I'm attempting to write a simple multiplayer type text game. I currently have a simple chat server right now. It's working just like it should, echoing the message to all the people connected.
I can't figure out how to take my next step. I want to associate the client connected with a player object. The player objects house the available commands someone can type in, so in order to move forward with parsing input I have to be able to do this - I just don't know how.
Currently the player object is just a standard object class with a few properties like 'name', 'id', 'location', that has a list of commands available to them. If you need a code example of that I can provide one.
Any ideas?
import socket, select
from helpers.colorize import colorize
class Server(object):
def __init__(self, host, port):
self.server = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
self.server.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET, socket.SO_REUSEADDR, 1)
self.server.bind((host, port))
self.server.listen(1)
self.clients = [self.server]
def start(self):
while True:
read_sockets,write_sockets,error_sockets = select.select(self.clients, [], [])
for sock in read_sockets:
#new conn
if sock == self.server:
sockfd, addr = self.server.accept()
self.clients.append(sockfd)
print "Connection from %s %s" % addr
#looks like a message
else:
#data recieved, lets try and do something
try:
data = sock.recv(4096)
if data: #we have something, parse it
self.sendall(sock, data) #give it to everyone for now
except: #disconnection, remove from our lists
self.sendall(sock, ("%s %s disconnected" % addr))
print "%s %s disconnected." % addr
socket.close()
self.clients.remove(sock)
continue
self.server.close()
def send(self, sock, message):
sock.send(colorize(message))
def sendall(self, sock, message):
#Do not send the message to master socket and the client who has send us the message
for socket in self.clients:
if socket != self.server:
try :
socket.send(message)
except :
# broken socket connection may be, chat client pressed ctrl+c for example
socket.close()
CONNECTION_LIST.remove(socket)
if __name__ == "__main__":
s = Server('localhost', 2222)
s.start()
You can use a dict to map fds of client sockets to client objects.
When you receive some new messages, you can fetch the corresponding object from the dict and invoke methods on it.

Send data from socket to another socket [duplicate]

This question already has an answer here:
Sending data from one Protocol to another Protocol in Twisted?
(1 answer)
Closed 8 years ago.
The code below receives data through sockets from an iPhone, and then I want to send that received data to another python script running through a different socket. My attempt is below. The other server receives the message fine however I am getting an errno 9 bad file descriptor as soon as I send the second message. Is there anyway to change the below code so it can continuously send received data straight to another socket?
import os
from twisted.internet.protocol import Protocol, Factory
from twisted.internet import reactor
from threading import Thread
class IphoneChat(Protocol):
def connectionMade(self):
self.factory.clients.append(self)
print "A new client has connected"
def connectionLost(self, reason):
print "client disconnected"
def dataReceived(self, data):
print "Message Received: ", data
TCP_IP = '127.0.0.1'
TCP_PORT = 5000
BUFFER_SIZE = 1024
self.s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
s.connect((TCP_IP, TCP_PORT))
s.send(data)
s.close()
def message(self, message):
self.transport.write(message + '\n')
factory = Factory()
factory.protocol = IphoneChat
factory.clients = []
reactor.listenTCP(3000, factory)
print "listening to 3000"
reactor.run()
There are a couple of errors in your IphoneChat code: a missing import socket and self.s = socket.socket(...) should just bind to a local variable s, not to the instance variable self.s.
Nevertheless, I think that the exception (socket.error: [Errno 9] Bad file descriptor) is actually being raised in the "other" Python script for which you don't show any code. It would be helpful to see that code, however, it is likely that you are closing the main server socket in response to the connection being closed by the IphoneChat script, rather than the per connection socket returned by socket.accept(). Here's some rough code that should work as the receiving server:
import socket
s = socket.socket()
s.bind(('127.0.0.1', 5000))
s.listen(1)
while True:
print "Waiting for connection... ",
conn, addr = s.accept()
print "Got connection from {}".format(addr)
while True:
msg = conn.recv(1024)
if msg == '':
print "Remote disconnected"
break
print "Got msg: %r" % msg
# N.B. close connection to remote peer, not the main server socket "s"
conn.shutdown(socket.SHUT_RDWR)
conn.close()
My guess is that you have code similar to the above, but that you are closing the main server socket instead of the remote connection.

Python SMTPD library override version

I'd like to emit my own message when someone connects to this smtp server.
import smtpd
import asyncore
class FakeSMTPServer(smtpd.SMTPServer):
__version__ = 'TEST EMAIL SERVER'
def process_message(self, peer, mailfrom, rcpttos, data):
print 'Receiving message from:', peer
print 'Message addressed from:', mailfrom
print 'Message addressed to :', rcpttos
print 'Message length :', len(data)
return
if __name__ == "__main__":
smtp_server = FakeSMTPServer(('localhost', 25), None)
try:
asyncore.loop()
except KeyboardInterrupt:
smtp_server.close()
However, I am still getting the response:
220 Win7-PC Python SMTP proxy version 0.2
How do I override the welcome message in python to see "TEST EMAIL SERVER"?
Just do
smtpd.__version__ = "TEST EMAIL SERVER"
somewhere (may be after import statements).

How to keep a socket open until client closes it?

I have simple python server and client.
Server:
import SocketServer
import threading
class MyTCPHandler(SocketServer.BaseRequestHandler):
def handle(self):
self.data = self.request.recv(1024).strip()
print str(self.client_address[0]) + " wrote: "
print self.data
self.request.send(self.data.upper())
if __name__ == "__main__":
HOST, PORT = "localhost", 3288
server = SocketServer.TCPServer((HOST, PORT), MyTCPHandler)
server.serve_forever()
Client:
import socket
import sys
from time import sleep
HOST, PORT = "localhost", 3288
data = "hello"
sock = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
try:
sock.connect((HOST, PORT))
sock.send(data + "\n")
received = sock.recv(1024)
sleep(10)
sock.send(data + "\n")
received = sock.recv(1024)
sleep(10)
sock.send(data + "\n")
received = sock.recv(1024)
finally:
sock.close()
Here is the output I get:
Server:
>python server.py
127.0.0.1 wrote:
hello
Client:
>python client.py
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "client.py", line 18, in <module>
received = sock.recv(1024)
socket.error: [Errno 10053] An established connection was aborted by the software in your host machine
I tried it on a linux machine as well. The server only receives one message and then I get an error on the recv statement of second message. I have just started learning networking on python but I think the server is closing the socket for some reason. How do I correct this?
A MyTcpHandler object is created for each connection, and handle is called to deal with the client. The connection is closed when handle returns, so you have to handle the complete communication from the client within the handle method:
class MyTCPHandler(SocketServer.BaseRequestHandler):
def handle(self):
while 1:
self.data = self.request.recv(1024)
if not self.data:
break
self.data = self.data.strip()
print str(self.client_address[0]) + " wrote: "
print self.data
self.request.send(self.data.upper())
NOTE: recv returns '' when the client closes the connection, so I moved .strip() after the recv so there is no false alarm due to the client sending only white space.
I'll first admit that it's been years since I last used SocketServer, so there might be more idiomatic approaches to solve your problem.
Note that your client opens a single connection and sends three sets of data and receives three sets of data. (Hopefully the TCP stack will send buffered data once you call receive() on the socket.)
Your server is expecting to handle a client connection completely, from start to finish, when it is called from the SocketServer callback mechanism. Your current class does a little bit of IO and then quits. You just need to extend your server callback to do more:
class MyTCPHandler(SocketServer.BaseRequestHandler):
def handle(self):
self.data = self.request.recv(1024).strip()
print str(self.client_address[0]) + " wrote: "
print self.data
self.request.send(self.data.upper())
foo = self.request.recv(1024).strip()
self.request.send(foo.lower())
bar = self.request.recv(1024).strip()
self.request.send("goodbye " + bar)
TO a similar problem here error: [Errno 10053]
I also tried the same thing and got the same error.
If there is a simple code like this to demonstrate this error:
import socket
host = 'localhost'
port = 5001
size = 102400
s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
s.connect((host,port))
for msg in ['Hello, world','Test','anything goes here']:
s.send(msg)
data = s.recv(size)
print 'Received:', data
s.close()
If you create a socket object and the amt it can send and echo back from server to see how much it receivers, if you vary that, say 1024 to 102400(in this code);
Which means the socket should not get closed but again in my Windows OS, the server side keeps listening and printing any data that client sends but on the Client side you get this error;
However if it is that the client can connect only once and send and receive only once, then that is how it was designed. Trying this works without any errors:
for msg in ['Hello, world','Test','anything goes here']:
s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
s.connect((host,port))
s.send(msg)
data = s.recv(size)
s.close()
print 'Received:', data
I am not sure if one socket object works only once to send and recieve data.
UPDATE
I think the issue was the capacity per client socket to receive data as per the buffersize fixed;
That's why the second code snippet above works thus creating new client connection sockets on the server. But that way lots of sockets are going to get used up.
Instead the following code fixed that problem by checking the amt of size being used up. If it exceeds the given amount, it creates a new socket at clients' but makes sure the message is sent; Actually the problem was with the server code but fixed it.
size = 10
This is a quick baby attempt at the code. I am sure you would understand and optimize it for the better!
client code:
messag = ['Hello, world', 'Test', 'anything goes here']
def client_to_server(messag,host,port,size):
s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
s.connect((host, port))
countmsg = 0
restmsg = ''
for msg in messag:
strl = tmsg = msg
if len(restmsg):
tmsg = restmsg + ' ' + msg
countmsg = len(tmsg)
if countmsg <= size:
pass
else:
restmsg = tmsg[size:]
tmsg = tmsg[:size]
#s.close()
countmsg = len(tmsg)
#s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
#s.connect((host, port))
print 'Sending to server msg {}'.format(tmsg)
s.send(tmsg)
# s.settimeout(1)
try:
data = s.recv(size)
print 'Received:', data
if strl == data:
print strl,data
countmsg = 0
restmsg = ''
except (socket.error), e:
print e.args,e.message
s.close()
s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
s.connect((host, port))
s.close()
if restmsg:
client_to_server([restmsg],host,port,size)
return
client_to_server(messag,host,port,size)
Server Code:
size = 1024 #This has to be bigger than client buf size!
s = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
s.bind((host, port))
s.listen(backlog)
while True:
#this is what accepts and creates a P2P dedicated client socket per socket
client, address = s.accept()
try:
data = client.recv(size)
while data or 0:
print "Client sent {} | Server sending data to client address {}".format(data, address)
client.send(data)
data = client.recv(size)
else: client.close()
except (socket.error), e:
client.close()
print e.args, e.message
Try it out. This uses the same socket.

Categories

Resources