RE: xAP - The Proposed Architecture Explained...

["Mark Harrison" <Mark.Harrison@xxxxxxx>]

Title: Message

Jason,

 

See the message from Patrick Lidstone at 16:46 on monday about this.

 

The point of building the protocol this way is that you CAN implement a single display controller if you want to (I probably will)

 

However, if someone else wants to build an embedded controller, it can drop right in...

 

It's open...

 

M.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Lee [mailto:jasonjlee@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 14 August 2002 10:54
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxxSubject: RE: [ukha_d] xAP - The Proposed Architecture Explained...

Forgive me, cause I've not really been following this, but isn't it easier to centralise the processing to one point? Why make 20 little devices with brains when you can have one device direct each display.. IE Control PC.

 

Then the smarts go in the PC, where its cheap and simple to do so, and the displays just listen for their ID at the top of the data packet. IF ID = ME display.

 

From what you described each device will need to be taught what it should and should not display? Would this be done from the pc? Which means writing a layer to teach the device.. Which would not be necessary with what I described above.

 

Now maybe as a consequence of the devices being networked, they would have lots of smarts anyway to do this processing, so the hardware for that processing is 'free', but I just thought I'd throw this idea around.

 

Not that the hardware is something I'm interested in immediately, but I think many have discovered that if we leave these things and come back to them later, we find they don't match what we THOUGHT they were, and then everyone loses.

 

J

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx 
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx 
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx 
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.