Re: Re: xPL announcement/description protocol -- was xPLDiag

[Mal Lansell <mal@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

There is a a fundemental conflict at the heart of these discussions..

Gerry is pushing a cross-platform agenda, which would indeed open up xPL
to other users - especially those running Linux who also tend to be
fairly tech-savvy.  However, we don't write any of our applications in a
cross platform manner - in fact, if cross-platform was a goal, that
would rule out anything written in .NET.  Even my C++ SDK would need
some effort to port with it's reliance on Windows events to synchronise
everything.

Unless we stop writing in .NET, xPL will always be a Windows oriented
system - but just how many developers would we have left if we took that
path?  I seem to be the only Windows coder here that prefers not to
program in .NET.   But in any case, how many of us actually want to test
our applications on multiple platforms that we have no interest in
ourselves?

A lot of the issues that are being discussed (such as whether xPLHal
should be mandatory) would not be such a problem if we stopped being
half-hearted about platforms and made a decision between being either
Windows-only, or a *genuine* cross-platform implementation, covering
both apps and protocol.

Mal




Ian Lowe wrote:

> My thoughts exactly - what Gerry's post last night has confirmed is, I
> feel, a need for clarification, and firming up what we mean by
"the xPL
> environment".
>
> I'm digging through a bunch of older emails at the moment to see what
> other overhanging niggles there were, see if we can't perhaps do all
> this as some sort of roundup document, and update the docs to reflect
> the bigger picture rather than just the component parts.
>
> I.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx [mailto:ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Tom Van den Panhuyzen
> Sent: 25 September 2005 11:07
> To: ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ukha_xpl] Re: xPL announcement/description protocol --
was
> xPLDiag
>
> I 'll add my typical sloganesk reply ;-)
>
> How many people are running an xPL network without brains like HAL or
> the scripting in xPL4Java ?  I bet exactly 0.
>
> Which xPL application/device needs a device discovery protocol ?  Only
> the brains.
>
> The brains are an essential but different part of the xPL network.  I
> fail to see why this component would not be portable.  It talks xPL at
> one end and XHCP at the other.  There is no OS dependency.
> It shouldn't be talking xPL on both sides because the XHCP-talk
doesn't
> concern the apps listening on the xPL network.
>
> If you accept that the brains keep a list of devices then the
detection
> latency is a non-issue because it is solved using rapid hbeats at
> startup.
>
> Cheers
> Tom
>
>
>
> 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
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>     *  Visit your group "ukha_xpl
>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ukha_xpl>"
on the web.
>
>     *  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>        ukha_xpl-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
>       <mailto:ukha_xpl-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
>     *  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>