Re: New to the list- intro

["Patrick Lidstone" <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Ake Hedman" <akhe@b...> wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> yes I know about xAP and have followed it closly. Much of it is
very
> interesting but I don't like the compelexity for parsing packet
contents.
> An XML format would have been better IMHO but is still not very
well
> suited for low end controlers.

OK. The xAP list would probably be a better place to continue this
discussion, but I'd just like to quickly address a couple of common
misconceptions:

- XML would definitely not have been better choice for our design
objectives, although a subset of the standard might have been
acceptable. In this sense xAP is a subset - you can translate from
xAP to XML and vice-versa by rule, it's a trivial exercise, and
indeed we use XSLT as part of our toolset on the more resource
capable platforms, giving us the best of both worlds.

- xAP is ideally suited to low end processors and narror bandwidth
networks, and was designed with these targets in mind from the
outset. A full xAP engine can (indeed, has) been implemented on a PIC
in less than 200 bytes of ROM. That makes it a phenomenally powerful
tool given the flexibility of the underlying protocol.

However, as with all these things, variety is the spice of life, and
I wish you luck with your project.

Patrick