Re: Subgroup UIDs

[Kevin Hawkins <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gregg Liming wrote:

>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.
>
I dont expect this within the 'near' future and as you say existing apps
(may) need code changes. The existing main developers are aware of it
though and (I hope) have a changeover option.  It may help if we
released the new UID format I guess. There are some possibilities for
the devices that don't use >254 sub addresses to be mapped back to the
shorter UID's so some backwards compatabily could be achieved, and new
format hubs might be able to translate on the fly.  The outgoing xAP
messages go direct and not via a hub though.   I will have a chat with
the specification group.

>   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.
>
>
I would code to the existing spec.

K

>Regards,
>
>Gregg
>
>
>