Re: Changes to Protocol Docs - a Summary

["Mal Lansell" <mal@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

--- In ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx, "John B" <home-automation@j...>
wrote:
> > There's a need here for the version information to be in the
> > xml file -
> >
> > Developers will create new functionality in existing apps. If
> > the xml files describes the triggers and commands available
> > for each version of the app, it eases the process.
>
> I like the idea of the XML file storing the latest version number,
but
> I'm not so sure on whether the XML file should contain information
for
> each version of the app.
>
> It's great for apps like xPLHal to be able to say:
> "You are using v1.2 of this app, and v1.3 is now available"
and
then
> take you to that app's web site, but when you start needing to
support
> multiple concurrent versions of the app, things get tricky.
>
> Personally I would rather go with an extension as follows:
>
> <device id="johnb-cm12"
>   version="1.4.3748.31248"
>   url="http://www.xpl.myby.co.uk/info/xplcm12/";>
>  ...
> </device>
>
> That way the XML file only needs to contain the most recent
information
> about the device, and apps like xPLHal don't have to figure out
which
> version of a device they're talking to when referencing the XML
file.
>
> At the end of the day, we want users to update to the latest
version of
> whatever apps they're using, and supporting older versions in the
XML
> file just gives them another reason not to upgrade.
>
> Regards,
>
> John

The problem with is that by downloading the latest vendor.xml, you
may find that you need to update several applications for their
elements to be visible in xPLHal.

A simple update to get one app working turns into a big job that you
might have wanted to put off to a more convenient time.

Mal