Re: k8000 xPL interface Progress and some questions

["Tom Van den Bon" <tvdbon@xxxxxxxxx>]

>
> Though one suggestion I might make on the device= line.  Could it be
> simplified a bit?  FOr example, drop the K8000_ as it's somewhat
implicit in
> the target= (or for status/triggers, target=) and drop the D prefix.
> Leaving it a simple number (i.e. device=1) will let
lower-powered/embedded
> devices be able to parse it easier.
That shouldn't be a problem, and it would make things alot more simpler.

> If you want to make a distinction between analog/digital/etc, you
could
> encode it as part of the type= (like type=doutput, type=ainput or
> type=digital_output, type=analog_input, etc, though shorter names
are easier
> to parse) keeping the device part pretty simple.  It's just a
thought --
> there is nothing at all wrong with the current way you have it
specified.
I agree, I never thought about that. I'll make the changes accordingly.

I have also made the following changes after reading the xPL docs a
bit more:

For the sensor.basic commands I changed the current to on/off instead
of 1/0, mainly because thats how the schema specifies it for digital
inputs.

For the control.basic commands I changed it so that you specify the
current as either on/off/pulse where pulse simulates a button pressed.


> I think you're pretty covered (assuming configuration gets resolved
in the
> framework -- working on that tomorrow).
>
Cool, Can't wait to check it out.

I've got another question, I noticed that for the service I can set
three strings:

VendorID
DeviceID
InstanceID

It seems that anything can be entered there, and I noticed in the xPL
logger that those values get sent with the xPL messages (source I presume)

For deviceID I'm using k8000, and from what I read the InstanceID
should be configurable by the enduser, but what about vendorID ?

Work on the GSM<->xPL gateway is also progressing nicely.

Thanks for the help,
Tom