Re: Standalone xPL Hub Summary, Mark II

["Mal Lansell" <mal@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well it would certainly be more simple to just assume a hub was
there!  We should definitely make a diagnostics app though if no-one
else is going to report "no hub" errors.

Mal



--- In ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx, "Ian Lowe" <ian.lowe@w...> wrote:
> Hmmm.
>
> I'd avoid any substantial changes to the environment here - let's
bear
> in mind that (apart from the odd "no-hub" issue some of us
are
seeing,
> this has been a nice solid environment for a good couple of years
now.
>
> One thing -
>
> > With built-in hubs, the application was free to assume that a hub
> would be available.
> > With a stand-alone hub, that will change.
>
> I don't think so - to my mind, the application should act as if
there is
> a hub present anyway. I think that an app should *always* assume
that a
> hub is present and in essence, not give it any other thought.
>
> One thing also - the suggested timings have to be worded
as "suggested
> values", not as a protocol breaking rule. There would be a lot of
work
> involved in re-writing existing code, and I think that time would
be
> better spent on new developments!
>
> Ian.