Re: Moving to TSC?

["Daniel Berenguer" <dberenguer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Kevin and Lehane for your responses.

>From an academic point of view, I agree in that BSC and TSC shouldn't
be mutually exclusive. However, managing multiple schemas into embedded
devices is sometimes hard to do, mainly if both schemas don't follow
identical mechanisms. Embedded controllers have limited flash space and the
UDP parsing must be done in a very dynamic way. Thus, I would prefer to
deal with a single schema for embedded devices. That's all. Other more
powerful controllers like opn-max could manage (and map) as many schemas as
nedded.

On the other hand, this kind of discussions could be addressed in a future
thread. At this moment, I just wanted to know about other xAP developers
currently working (or planning to work) on a xAP TSC implementation.

Daniel.


--- In xAP_developer@xxxxxxx, Kevin T <kevin@...> wrote:
>
> Gents
>
> Personaly I have never regarded TSC as a replacement for BSC. I am
sure this
> was not the intention.
>
> I have always regarded TSC more as a better way of handing analog
rather
> than digital vaules. The handling of analogs within BSC was always a
> compromise and TSC was the answer.
>
> Where I have tried to implement TSC it has always been alongside BSC,
and
> sometimes even alongside other schema like xap-temperature.  There is
no
> reason for the schema to be mutually exclusive, they can co-exist,
and/or
> you coulld chose to tuyrn one or the other off
>
> Kevin T
> (the other Kevin)
>
> On 22 March 2010 06:49, Lehane Kellett (g8kmh) <g8kmh@...>
wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Daniel,
> > I think one reason for the current lack of TSC adoption is there
are few
> > devices supporting it, none public AFAIK. Hammering out the
remaining issues
> > shouldn't prove too difficult.
> >
> > A more widescale adoption would, I think, take xAP adoption to a
new level.
> > I don't see why TSC shouldn't be adopted by Floorplan (James has
some hooks
> > in already) and other widely used applications/mappers over time
but right
> > now there is no motivation to do so. Chicken and Egg.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Lehane
> >
> >
> >
> > Daniel Berenguer wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > After reading Kevin's post about the necessity to migrate to xAP
TSC
> > for actual telemetry applications I've being considering doing
the
> > jump for my recent projects. First of all, I wanted to do a first
try
> > on opn-mbs, my Modbus opnode. I didn't like how data was being
pushed
> > into the BSC text field where data and units had to coexist most
of
> > the time. For my own projects, I never add the units at the end
of the
> > text field because this complicates data parsing on other BSC
> > applications but some other applications need to know which kind
of
> > data is being transported by any BSC message. This is what I call
the
> > "plug and play" feature. A temperature controller can
understand the
> > data sent by temperature sensors with very little programming on
the
> > controller.
> >
> > Some protocols like J1939, Zigbee and KNX specify the type of
data
> > transported each time so converting these data to xAP BSC would
make
> > us consider the following scenarios:
> >
> > 1. Lose of information. BSC doesn't inform about the type of data
> > transmitted.
> > 2. Add units at the end of the BSC text field
> > 3. Add proprietary field ("units", "type" or
whatever else)
> >
> > As you can see, moving to TSC is something technically useful IMO
> > although we should address some pending issues regarding the
current
> > TSC draft too. However, what bothers me is that BSC is the most
> > implemented schema and abandoning it would reduce
interoperability to
> > the TSC products. Obviously, we should combine both BSC and TSC
> > schemas, at least during the first years, in order to guarantee
> > interoperability with current BSC solutions but this is something
not
> > desirable because of the increment of the xAP code footprint.
> >
> > Based on the above reasoning, I'd always vote for enriching xAP
BSC
> > instead of abandoning it regardless of TSC's advantages.
> > Interoperability and the current BSC implementations are the best
> > "heritage" of xAP IMO so we should take this kind of
decisions very
> > carefully. But instead of starting a new controversy, I want to
do a
> > simple question to the active xAP developers:
> >
> > How many among you are willing to move/implement TSC into your
current
> > BSC applications in the short term?
> >
> > I wouldn't want my controllers to become a TSC island into the
BSC
> > sea. As any other I/O device, they need interoperability with
major
> > software like HomeSeer, HouseBot, Mr.House or Xlobby but haven't
heart
> > about any intention to do the jump for these applications.
> >
> > Thanks guys for your feedback.
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Berenguer
> > http://www.usapiens.com
> > http://www.opnode.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
>




------------------------------------