Re: BSC - Distributed intelligence DRAFT

["mark_harrison_uk2" <mph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

And the reason that Yahoo! has only just got a bunch of messages I
wrote over a month ago is???????


Mark, confused, Harrison


--- In xAP_developer@xxxxxxx, "Mark Harrison \(Yahoo!\)"
<mph@a...> wrote:
> 1: That would be nice.
>
> 2: I'm happy to start looking at this, but it strikes me that the
times when
> we've had the most success with interoperability schema are when
they are
> INCREDIBLY simple. I'd like to start with a simple "BSC
Association"... that
> simple devices could support. Once THAT is working, we can look at
extending
> to more complex stuff.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Lidstone (Personal e-mail)"
<patrick@l...>
> To: <xAP_developer@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 4:37 PM
> Subject: RE: [xAP_developer] BSC - Distributed intelligence DRAFT
>
>
> > A couple of thoughts:
> >
> > 1. There have a been a number of occasions where we have proposed
> > null-bodies as part of "probes" or
"requests". Perhaps the spec
> > should be revised to make messages with no body at all legal?
> > If anyone is concerned about backwards compatibility, we could
> > do this by using a new header (xap-request perhaps?), although
> > I don't like this very much.
> >
> > 2. The current schema doesn't allow for any translation between
> > the source and target mapping. Perhaps this is overcomplicating
> > a straight forward concept, but the most obvious extension would
> > be to allow for (a) inverted operation (switch=on, light=off /
> > switch=off, light=on), and (b) timed/pulse operation (switch=on,
> > output fires for x secs. A simple way of dealing with this would
> > be to allow an association to include a condition name, value
> > pair. We could then extend the condition capabilities as
> > real-world needs arise.
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >