Re: Subgroup UIDs

[Gregg Liming <gregg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kevin Hawkins wrote:

>>4) I'm fully expecting the requirement to sequence new base (4
digit)
>>UIDs as the mapping table "rolls over" 254.  What is
unclear to me is
>>whether I must also have a unique source name for each new base
UID.
>>I'm very much hoping not as it would be arbitrary and only exist
due to
>>the 254 limit on subaddresses.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>This is a current restriction based on only supporting 254 sub
addresses
>- it will go away with a longer UID field.
>
Thanks Kevin.  Can you suggest any likelihood (yeah--I know--crystal
ball) of this occurring in the near (< 2 months) future?  I'm sure such
a change requires issues to be addressed (read: code changes) for the
existing apps.   But, if it is at all likely to be soon, then it would
prevent creating a fair amount of (IMO--excessively convoluted) code to
support a "band-aid".  Anything that you might comment on that
would
suggest a timeframe (pros or cons) would be quite beneficial.

Regards,

Gregg