Re: xPLLib v3.0 Public Beta

["John B" <home-automation@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Van den Panhuyzen <tomvdp@xxxxxxx>
To: ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:00:31 +0100
Subject: Re: [ukha_xpl] xPLLib v3.0 Public Beta

>
> Hello,
>
> >
> > I have no problem with the principle of an app being able to act
as a
> hub,
> > but I'm not sure about the mutex idea.
> >
> > The incompatibility between mutex and non .net app's worries me
> somewhat.
> >
> > Personally I would prefer an approach where app's that can act as
> hubs
> > regularly try to bind to the xpl port instead?
> >
>
> There is in fact no incompatibility between version V3.0 (with mutex)

Yes there is... I've seen it happen :-)

Suppose you have two apps installed: A V3 app, and a stand-alone hub.
The V3 app starts first, binds to port 3865 and starts acting as a hub.
The stand-alone hub starts, and can't bind to 3865.

I then shut down the V3 app (or it fails) - after all - I have a hub
installed, so the last thing I expect when I shut down a regular
application is for everything to stop working...

And now, the system is hubless - everything has stopped working.

The key point in your reply is this one:

> wait for the mutex to be released (read: the other app goes down) and
> then grab the mutex and start a hub.

Only if it's a V3 app - if you consider V3 apps in combination with other
hub implementations, the mutex is useless - especially if you only have
one V3 app, and all your other apps are from different vendors that don't
use the mutex.

> > > My own view (and I think this differs from Tom) is that it
> > > should continue to accept traffic from the network by
default.
> >
> > I would have to agree with this. Things like windows firewall
already
> > complicate troubleshooting particular issues, I think locking
down to
> the
> > local ip by default just makes support more complicated?
>
> Ok, I disagree here, but only slightly :-)  I see your point.  Yet
> your argument that users should have firewalls *and*¨that xpl should
> be as easy as possible to configure does not add up.

Yes it does :-)

It's like saying that because you've got three locks on your front door,
you must have three locks on every internal door of your house.
Just because you need to configure a firewall, doesn't mean you should
have to configure xPL before it works.


> If you can
> configure a firewall, you can definitely configure V3.0 :-)  It is
> choosing between listening to anything, to local traffic from the same
> pc or to some specific address(es).

I just don't think we should make a change that will cause 90%+ of our
user base to have to go and configure their xPL network settings before
anything will work.

> It's only my view.  Haven't been on this list long enough to even have
> voting rights ;-)

Everyone's view counts on here - and I know you've put a lot of time and
effort into xPL over the last couple of weeks.

> I am glad I have a solution I can configure and deploy on my pc with 2
> network cards of which one is connected to the internet.

Agreed - it's a very useful feature - I just think that it should allow
traffic from any address by default, and allow the user to secure it if
they wish.

Regards,

John