Re: xPLLib v3.0 Public Beta

["Mal Lansell" <mlansell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "John B" <home-automation@xxxxxxx>
To: <ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: [ukha_xpl] xPLLib v3.0 Public Beta

> I do think that a stand-alone hub service written entirely in pure C++
(i.e. no need for .NET or any ActiveX DLLs) would be very useful as a
building block for an xPL installation, and should be more efficient than
anything that uses .NET or ActiveX.... are you offering Mal ;-)
>

Yes, I could do that.  I'd want to nail whether we're going for this
migrating hub malarky first, though - there doesn't appear to be much of a
consensus yet.  I'm still in favour of the simple standalone hub approach.

A few questions:

1) Tom said earlier "If a user has xpl windows applications and no xpl
services then it is of course better to have a dedicated hub".  Why? 
If the
hub can transfer, then any running app can provide the hub functions.

2) Windows Services only run on Win2k and WinXP, right?  So for Win98 &
WinME we have to also release the hub as an application (I assume we
support
these OSes?)

3) If I were to write a hub (with no .NET framework needed) - I'd need to
know everything it does!  Is it just a case of broadcasting everything it
receives, or does it read and act on the message target fields?  Does it
send it's own heartbeats and config?

Mal