RE: Re: [Project] Kbd/LCD device

["Broadfoot, Kieran J" <Kieran.Broadfoot@xxxxxxx>]

I would tend to avoid broadcast messages because we should not be
broadcasting messages beyond the subnet on which the device resides.  This
would limit us to only 254 addressable devices.  Now for me and my flat
thats more than enough but consider somewhere like black firs ;-)  Maybe in
the first instance we should use broadcasts and for larger environments
build a proxy type device to administer a subnet.

Just a thought

Kieran

-----Original Message-----
From: patrickl@xxxxxxx [mailto:patrickl@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 2:57 PM
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: [ukha_d] Re: [Project] Kbd/LCD device


--- In ukha_d@y..., Ant Skelton <ant@a...> wrote:
> > The second prerequisite is to define the system requirements, and
this
> is a job for the boys in the pointy hats. As far as the interop
protocol
> is concerned, I'd expect these to be things like: will communicate
over
> TCP/IP, will adopt a client-server model, will avoid the use of
> broadcasts etc.

Why are you anti-broadcast? I think it might be just the right thing
in this environment - one message communicates a change in status to
anything that is interested in it - cf. to client-server where each
device has to explicitly register an interest and the server has to
manage a pool of connections.

Patrick




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/