RE: Re: xAP/xPL and Rabbits....

["Kevin Hawkins" <lists@xxxxxxx>]

One of the other points with the size of source addressing is that any site
implementation could elect to restrict the size of the addresses they use
so
if you wanted to only use say 10 characters for addressing with xAP you
can.
xAP simply removes artificial restrictions on naming.



A key xAP advantage though is that every message contains a 'UID' value in
the header. This UID allows a device to be uniquely identified using only 4
bytes. Indeed better than that an end point within that device eg one
switch
on a four gang faceplate is uniquely identified. This allows a xAP receiver
to be made with absolutely minimal requirements (from a software/storage
viewpoint) - a xAP based lamp for example that wants to be switched ON and
OFF by several different switches only has to store 4 bytes for each source
address it is looking for, regardless of the length of the source names -
this allows highly efficient storage resulting in the ability to utilise
lower capacity (cost) devices within xAP receivers.



Kevin



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xap_automation



-----Original Message-----
From: patricklidstone [mailto:patrick@xxxxxxx]
> Variable vs Fixed Field Size
> xAP's design goals call for human legibility within messages. As
such, the
> elements within a xAP message may be of considerable size. xPL
trades some
> of the human readability in return for easier handling of messages
by small
> devices.

The maximum size of a UDP message is limited to 1,500 bytes in any
case...




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]