[werk_ag]

I discussed pretty much with engolling and we came to the conclusion to check if a connection was lost and try again some attempts later.

...

I created a struct for a WD object with the following variables:

•     bool WIFIunit_configured; --> it checks, if a WD is configured.
  
•     bool WIFIunit_connected; --> It safes the state, if it is connected (or it did not have a connection loss)
  
•     int WIFIunit_attempts; --> it counts up the attempts not trying to connect again (the variable that is being compared to that can be adjusted; e.g. 5 is sth. like 15min and 10 is like 30min; if the interval of checking data is 3min)
  
•     char* WIFIunit_address; --> the unit adress or IP (both working at my network)
  
•     int WIFIunit_port; --> the port of the device, if this differs and is not the standard port 80
  

So now a device can have another port and one can be left out in the middle also, so extra sensors 5,1;5,3 and 5,4 for example can be configured.

Hi t3gathome,

A completely agree that a check to determine if the remote units are dead or alive should be done.
Regarding the proposed struct, I have some concerns: It requires at least 10 bytes (maybe more if an name address is used instead of an IP) for each unit, so at least 40 bytes for 4 units.

I'm working in an alternatively way to reach the same result, but with a lower memory consumption.
Sensors address (IP or address) can be defined in any order, with or without holes in between.

Code:

const char* WIFIunit_address [][4]= { "192.168.1.154"            // IP address of first WiFi sensor
                                  , "192.168.1.153"            // IP address of second WiFi sensor
                                  , ""                           // IP address of third WiFi sensor
                                  , "192.168.1.152"                        // IP address of fourth WiFi sensor
                                  };

At startup, and every 15 minutes the system try to ping each device, if it doesn't reply its marked as "dead", and it will not be used next time we try to read T/H from remote WD units.

Every thing seems to be working fine. For now I haven't implemented the possibility to choose the port (instead of the default port 80). I will try to do it next, however I would prefer to have a defined port for all four units, instead a defined port per unit.

As soon as I can I will send you the code for testing and suggestions.
Thank you for your collaboration.