RE: Re: new X10 component: medusa-cm11

["Tony Tofts" <tony@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Is there any reason for allowing Q through Z etc ?
> The specs state level=0 to 100, data1=0 to 255 etc, so valid
> ranges are given, but housecode and devicecode are not
> limited by the X10 standards ?

It provides the ability to have pseudo x10 devices in the xpl x10 system

E.g. an app for a VIOM that allows the user to map inputs/outputs as if
they
were x10 devices

> Are you
> saying the specs can be modified such that a confirm may be
> different from the original message ?
>
> I quote from the current specs:
> <quote>
> The command message, if successfully sent onto the powerline,
> should be echoed back as a trigger message using the schema
> X10.CONFIRM. The message format is the same as the X10.BASIC
> trigger message shown above, however the X10.CONFIRM message
> schema indicates that the trigger message is purely a
> response to a command, and not a genuine incoming X10 message
> from the powerline.
> </quote>

I don't think I'm contradicting this. It doesn't say the confirmation must
be identical to the incoming command, only that it is the same format. So
sending out 2 (or more) confirms doesn't go against this?

The use of the word 'echo' in the documentation probably clouds the issue
regarding interpretation though.

E.g. if a user sends device=A1,S3,A2 to a genuine x10 xpl app it certainly
shouldn't include S3 in the confirm???

Of course this all comes down to how we use/interpret x10.basic. Personally
I don't see the need for any xpl schema to be 'atomic' to it's particular
use. The ties that bind and all that.

xPL was always designed to be used around a central controller(s) not
point-to-point. i.e. the xpl apps/devices are inputs and/or outputs to the
central brain. So rather than (like xap?) where a finger can cause another
finger to move, with xpl it was intended that a finger moves, the brain
makes a decision, and then moves the other finger. In my opinion that means
the schemas can be somewhat "looser"? i.e. not atomic to a
particular use.
The x10.basic probably did start atomic, but in a very short space of time
it was enhanced/expanded or whatever.

I fully appreciate where your'e coming from on this, I just don't
personally
agree. Others may have other opinions to mine of course.

Regards
Tony



xPL Links: http://www.xplproject.org.uk http://www.xplhal.com http://www.xpl.myby.co.uk
To Post a Message: ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx
To Subscribe:  ukha_xpl-subscribe@xxxxxxx
To Unsubscribe:  ukha_xpl-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx