The UK Home Automation Archive

Archive Home
Group Home
Search Archive


Advanced Search

The UKHA-ARCHIVE IS CEASING OPERATIONS 31 DEC 2024


[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]

Re: Spec revisions...


  • Subject: Re: Spec revisions...
  • From: Stuart Booth
  • Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 18:46:00 +0000

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:38:24 -0000, "Patrick Lidstone"
<<a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=ycVbu5wIO00OWzGJBTRlNN6sPC4OsWDhuyHEsMXRu_GTFhA9EsMNiBjeNbC1Vx_oikYfCGSZ1N7p8DfwtA">patrick@l...</a>>
wrote:

>At the moment, senders and receivers use schema which identify
>functionality which is specific to the device. The idea of event
>addressing is the introduction of -abstract- events which are not
>tied to a specific device(s), but indicate a generic, system wide
>change of status.

Do you happen to have an example of what you mean by this?

Taking your audio.mute example, I'm thinking that an untargetted
message (one-to-many) achieves the same result.

A many-to-many notification sounds almost like an anonymous broadcast.
ie no source.

>2. Heartbeats, devices and sub-addressing.
>There is a case to be made for devices being able to support multiple
>source or target addresses if they choose.

Indeed!! Although I may be bending things a bit in my case.

My Slim connector (optionally) supports multiple target addresses for
instance. The target addresses are highly related in this case
however.

>Some pieces of hardware
>may be able to support multiple logical functions that are totally
>unrelated (e.g. Ian B's relay control, which is also capable of input
>switch sensing, my rabbit board which can support two completely
>different serial devices concurrently). The fact that these two
>functions happen to be implemented on the same device is complete co-
>incidence, and they really should be independently addressed. We
>don't currently allow for that in the spec, and I think we should.

Isn't that what the subaddress was intended for?

>There is no issue for small devices here - we aren't doing away with
>subaddressing, we're just saying that a larger device could support
>multiple, independent source &amp; target addresses. Such a device
would
>also need to generate one heartbeat for each "core" address
it
>supported.

Sounds perfectly sensible/logical to me. I had taken this for granted
to be honest, now that you mention it. Nothing I've written pumps out
multiple heartbeats yet,.

Stuart
--
Stuart Booth
Somewhere in Buckinghamshire, England, UK

<a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=fjUP70X48nauTuUw9O4mnrGnbJshEq4K8oN7hefoL3x4mtYWSjLeOQtHVtI8n7Y-9phgcI8lXDiYQbHC5AsC4w">stuart@s...</a>





xAP_Development Main Index | xAP_Development Thread Index | xAP_Development Home | Archives Home

Comments to the Webmaster are always welcomed, please use this contact form . Note that as this site is a mailing list archive, the Webmaster has no control over the contents of the messages. Comments about message content should be directed to the relevant mailing list.