Re: OSD ALERT

[armagh_elect]

> A device supporting locking could implement a timeout period,
whereby it
> releases control?

This is what i was thinking say after 60 minutes or whatever the OSD
Device would Unlock.......

> Where a device doesn't support locking (and therefore doesn't
support
> exclusive/release) it would be nice if it recognised 'exclusive' as
> equivalent to 'clear' command for tidyness.

Oh i see...ok will try and implement this one then as a clear
command..

Any chance of looking at my previous post to Steve regarding my OSD
so far.. and making some comments...
Thanks
Frank


--- In <a
href="/group/ukha_xpl/post?postID=JvB3XqmYveu-xkxyg_6wEMz1OLoLyVKqym3KG7KaNrbcGZqsVaBdmGjWgMofDjqhndj_tVbByMcV8NDVM-zX0PU">ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx</a>,
"Tony Tofts" <tony@x> wrote:
> > >> Even a message with alert=Y must be _ignored_ if the
> > display device
> > >> is in exclusive mode (and the alert= message isn't from
> > the locking
> > >> source).
> >
> > > This would concern me a little ??.....What happens if the
Locking
> > > Source
> > for what ever reason decides not to send the release
> > command...??? > > Nothing else has access to the OSD Device
?
>
> A device supporting locking could implement a timeout period,
whereby it
> releases control?
>
> The idea of release/lock is to support the display of menu's, it
wouldn't be
> advisable to have alerts popping up in the middle of a menu.
>
> Remember, a UDP based protocol does not guarantee delivery anyway.
>
> In most cases exclusive/release wouldn't be used in any case. It
was added
> to the osd to provide locking for specific scenarios, but where it
_is_
> implmented all other messages must be discarded (unless the device
is
> capable of storing them all for later display, unlikely) while it
is locked.
>
> Where a device doesn't support locking (and therefore doesn't
support
> exclusive/release) it would be nice if it recognised 'exclusive' as
> equivalent to 'clear' command for tidyness.
>
> Regards
> Tony