RE: Renaming of instances and SubInstances?

[Ian B]

>Yep - I do think the single messages are important - and although you
might
>need to send 8 it is really only a loop - actually there could be more
>because if for example a combination of inputs caused all the outputs
to
>change state then you would be reporting all the inputs that
>changed and all
>the outputs too.

No problems. I will put in the loop and see how it goes.

> The latter may not be as a result of anything changing state but could
be
>just a periodic update message that went out every 15 mins say or more
>likely would be in response to another 'request for status' xAP
message.

Purely request for status for me. I don't plan to broadcast this sort of
thing for all my I/O.

>Hence something like HomeSeer (at launch) would send a tragetted
'request
>for status' message (to the whole device) and could then know the state
of
>all that devices inputs & outputs, returned in one message;

Hmmm, I have done status as that of the outputs and separately of the
inputs. Do you think that bearing in mind I have an inputs schema and a
relays schema that status should be dealt with as something else. Since I
cannot currently tell whether something is an input or an output other than
the schema used to talk to it then returning them all in one message would
be tricky requiring more description of its abilities. Couple to this the
different capabilities of outputs (and inputs) e.g. percentages of output
etc. the resulting message would be rather complex. I would think Homeseer
etc. would have a plugin for a device like my I/O controller so it would
know how to communicate with it and hey presto.

Ian


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kevin Hawkins [mailto:<a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=lCaemcfGZRnSYE1ADgWLi6cjWxtedxc-PYeQNTL4NE_6C77DDvt3aCsl2ABPbYxBxBX9fRvZvNqh3PXktQ">lists@u...</a>]
>Sent: 31 August 2003 20:14
>To: <a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=XNwTXq6OcfQ6jqhsfRIylaAyLpyzOEt2bPjX54fuS0T1VVuJHAKu-U6QGRVkIuCTR-XRp5rnUSTmRdL7ge-TUtYXOqa0P64">xAP_developer@xxxxxxx</a>
>Subject: RE: [xAP_developer] Renaming of instances and SubInstances?
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian B [mailto:<a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=Zyr8gNZ5QhB7mSUYetADI2962-7v1Y5SzkH3KjWUc9BLUMb1Cd6sDJPgLc8jp5e-Par9us8e7n1W7Q">Ian@M...</a>]
> > Sent: 31 August 2003 19:27
> > To: <a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=XNwTXq6OcfQ6jqhsfRIylaAyLpyzOEt2bPjX54fuS0T1VVuJHAKu-U6QGRVkIuCTR-XRp5rnUSTmRdL7ge-TUtYXOqa0P64">xAP_developer@xxxxxxx</a>
> > Subject: RE: [xAP_developer] Renaming of instances and
SubInstances?
> >
> > Hi Kevin
> >
> > >I think you need to send a message for each UID - this is
because
> > something
> > >could be watching for the UID to change state ( based only on
the
> > >source UID
> > >)- so two message should go out in succession.
> >
> > OK - so a worst case scenario for me would be 8 single body
messages
> > going
> > out in succession.
>
>Yep - I do think the single messages are important - and although you
might
>need to send 8 it is really only a loop - actually there could be more
>because if for example a combination of inputs caused all the outputs
to
>change state then you would be reporting all the inputs that
>changed and all
>the outputs too.
>
> >
> > > > When more than one changes state do I have multiple
> > > > pairs in the body i.e. 'SubInstance name=new state'
repeating or
> > > > multiple messages.
> >
> > >Again - that was what I too asked in the adjacent Topic 1
thread -
> > >there are
> > >two possible ways of doing it - multiple names within one
body or
> > multiple
> > >body parts - I sort of favour the multiple body parts as it
allows
> > >an easier
> > >way of spanning two messages together, and it fits in with
James'
> > usage in
> > >say the news xAP - and you prefer the single body - anyone
else any
> > views
> > >here ??
> >
> > This is contradictory to your first answer above? If I have sent
up to
> > 8
> > individual change of status messages then there is no need
>for either a
> > multi body message of multiple pairs in a single body message. Or
have
> > I got
> > the wrong end of the stick?
>
>It's the topic that I raised in the adjacent thread 'Topic 1' - there
are
>two related things here basically
>
>1) What happens when something changes state - and
>
>2) How do we report 'status' in a way that everybody can standardise
on.
>
> The latter may not be as a result of anything changing state but could
be
>just a periodic update message that went out every 15 mins say or more
>likely would be in response to another 'request for status' xAP
message.
>
>Hence something like HomeSeer (at launch) would send a tragetted
'request
>for status' message (to the whole device) and could then know the state
of
>all that devices inputs &amp; outputs, returned in one message; it
could then
>track the individual state change messages and from time to time
>verify it's
>internal model by issuing another status request should it want. My
>rationale was that a request for status sent to the '00' UID
(effectively
>the whole device) should return a status message for all the inputs and
>outputs - whereas if you targeted a specific output (UID) then you
>were only
>asking about that one output. Whether it was one body with several
names or
>several bodies was for discussion as was this issue of whether a device
>should send a compound response 'at all' for all it's I/O or make do
with
>many single responses. I think the individual responses are quite key
as
>they allow simple devices to know when something changes state just by
>monitoring the UID.
> If there is seen to be a usefulness for the compound response from
>the device (where it lists all it's I/O in one message) then it would
seem
>logical that it should send this whenever something changed too. I do
like
>the tidiness of this compound response.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Kevin Hawkins [mailto:<a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=lCaemcfGZRnSYE1ADgWLi6cjWxtedxc-PYeQNTL4NE_6C77DDvt3aCsl2ABPbYxBxBX9fRvZvNqh3PXktQ">lists@u...</a>]
> > >Sent: 31 August 2003 17:56
> > >To: <a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=XNwTXq6OcfQ6jqhsfRIylaAyLpyzOEt2bPjX54fuS0T1VVuJHAKu-U6QGRVkIuCTR-XRp5rnUSTmRdL7ge-TUtYXOqa0P64">xAP_developer@xxxxxxx</a>
> > >Subject: RE: [xAP_developer] Renaming of instances and
SubInstances?
> > >
> > >
> > >Hi Ian...
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Ian B
> > > >
> > > > OK, I have my relays reporting a change of state now be
>it from a
> > > > command
> > > > which sets one on etc. or a timer expiring.
> > >
> > >Sounds good...
> > > >
> > > > Now, the question is:
> > > > When more than one relay changes state at the same time
from
> > either
> > > > timers
> > > > expiring, a wildcard command or a direct set command
that sets
> > all of
> > > > them
> > > > at once what do I use in the UID?
> > >
> > >I think you need to send a message for each UID - this is
because
> > something
> > >could be watching for the UID to change state ( based only on
the
> > >source UID
> > >)- so two message should go out in succession.
> > >
> > >Whether there should also be a message sent out on the '00'
UID that
> > >contains a list of the channels that have changed state is
really the
> > same
> > >issue that I raised in the adjacent thread - no-one seems to
have a
> > view on
> > >that ;-)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Secondly and related. When more than one changes state
do I have
> > > > multiple
> > > > pairs in the body i.e. 'SubInstance name=new state'
repeating or
> > > > multiple
> > > > messages. I don't want to have multiple body messages.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > >
> > >Again - that was what I too asked in the adjacent Topic 1
thread -
> > >there are
> > >two possible ways of doing it - multiple names within one
body or
> > multiple
> > >body parts - I sort of favour the multiple body parts as it
allows
> > >an easier
> > >way of spanning two messages together, and it fits in with
James'
> > usage in
> > >say the news xAP - and you prefer the single body - anyone
else any
> > views
> > >here ??
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I have also altered the changing of the SubInstance
>names so only
> > one
> > > > can be
> > > > done at once and there can not be any duplicates. I
>have declared
> > the
> > > > UID
> > > > last two digits as 01 to 08 for the outputs and 09 to
16 or 24
> > (but in
> > > > hex
> > > > of course) for the inputs depending how many are
>fitted. 00 - not
> > sure
> > > > about
> > > > this one but really it is the instance reporting i.e. a
>heartbeat
> > or
> > > > for
> > > > status messages.
> > >
> > >I think that makes sense - the '00' UID is really the whole
device or
> > the
> > >xAP application - as such it should report things related to
>the whole
> > >device - maybe when two things change state a message should
go out
> > from
> > >each one - but the message from the '00' sub instance should
give a
> > status
> > >update for all of the I/O possibly - a sort of summary ??
> > >
> > > K
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Ian