RE: Re: X10 Mapping (was Wildcarding query)

["Edward Pearson" <edward.mailgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C4F5B4.D7291A10
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The latest release (v2.5) of my X10 controller, which is BSC v1.3 capable,
does this kind of mapping. It holds an address map table, local to the
connector, that has one entry per X10 device on the X10 network. The
address
map translates between addresses such as downstairs.study.desklamp (xAP)
and
C7 (X10). So all X10'ness is hidden from the xAP network, as it should be.

Each map entry also holds the kind of module: binary, dimmer, pro-dimmer
etc
and takes care of issuing the correct set of X10 commands to get the
controlled device into the required state. It does this by tracking the the
state of modules (as best it can). So, for instance, you can have two
lamps,
one on a plug in module, the other on a DIN dimmer, issue a single BSC
command targetted at both to dim to 60% and the connector will issue the
appropriate sequence of X10 powerline commands to get the two lamps to the
correct state.

The next version (v3), mostly built but pending finalisation of the schema
details, includes a BSCMapper so you can set associations between BSC
devices (eg, lighit swithces and lights) as well as an implementation of
groups so you can address sets of X10 (and non X10) devices together under
a
single xAP address.

I put up a release of this earlier this week on my website but no sooner
was
it up there I spotted that it wasn't working in release configuration (fine
in debug). I've been working through those issues today so I expect a
decent
version to be available tomorrow.

_____

From: Johan Helsingius [mailto:yahoo@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 08 January 2005 14:37
To: xAP_developer@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [xAP_developer] Re: Wildcarding query


Kevin Hawkins wrote:

> X10 is a headache in that as David says it is ubiquitous and therefore
> an X10 schema appeared for legacy support, particularly for X10
> controller applications.

Yes, it is ubiquitous, and has to be supported. But perhaps by hiding
most of the ugliness in the gateway.

> It really shouldnt have its own schema - as
> indeed most 'specific' devices shouldn't .  Aside from the device
naming
> of A1 A2 it is really problematic in that it (mostly) doesn't have
> status, or even end point presence detection, the nature of loads cant
> be determined eg dimmer/appliance

All this can (albeit awkwardly) be handled by the gateway.

> and it occasionally misses commands,
> plus all dims are relative, this makes state tracking very awkward.

Urghh, yes. But again, a "smart" gateway can compensate to some
degree.
I see the role of a gateway as a translator not only of low-level
message formats, but also between different architectures - mapping one
universe to another.

> Add the several different 'enhanced X10' specs and the different ways
people
> have implemented it eg ON at 100% vs preset dim level and it really
> becomes awkward to model.

Yes, agree. And to deal with that, there has to be a mapping
database/file somewhere , telling the software things like "H4 is a
dimmable lamp, capable of preset dim levels and smart extended
dimming".
But should this info be in the gateway, or in some central place that
also knows H4 is the light at the front stairs?


> If you name your devices appropriately in xAP and action things based
on
> functionality (eg use a  lighting schema) then it really doesnt matter
> where on a network your xAP applications sit - they will continue to
> work without reconfiguration, even if you move them.

What would be helpful is some more guidelines in using the schemas in a
smart way.

> There is no need
> to configure gateway addresses in xAP and there is no network topology
> to get in the way as xAP is broadcast in nature.

Well, I think the history of multicast on the internet has proven that
while broadcast is great in a local setting, anything bigger/more
complex will need smart routing - either manually configured, or
automatic/learned.

> Having a way to
> remotely configure applications  from one central location is
obviously
> a desireable thing....      Expect a proposal on this very soon...
> (along with a formalised groups and scenes)

Excellent!

> Johan,   tell us a little more about what you have done with xAP  -
> always interested...

Well, I haven't yet done that much. A first attempt at a "smart"
(as in
compensating-for-braindamage) X10 interface, and just some general home
automation stuff. Looking at porting/rewriting some of the Rio Receiver
stuff (as well as telephony and other sound stuff) for Linux/Unix and
perhaps Java. But I'm also involved (as board member and investor) in a
company making embedded boxes for interfacing web/internet stuff to
industrial systems and devices, and I'm pushing them to take a look at xAP.

Julf



_____