Re: Batch sent X10 command

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:09:52 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
<not-for-mail@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
<dm5pb290v4ln9qe2tnnsqqt3m1lpbcto9v@xxxxxxx>:

>On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:49:46 -0400, Marc_F_Hult
><MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 'Course with respect to the original poster's need, it might be said
that
>> adding an 11.7Mb download, yet another program install, and a raft of
>> stuff to the computer is unnecessary.
>
>This is Internet News so of course that might be said, but it would also
>not be true.  I am the OP and I had nothing extra to download.
>
>Tony


!! <BG>

   It might also be said that I didn't pay close enough attention to the
author, which, usenet or not, would be true ;-)

There is a useful point to be made here that relates to what might seem to
be a picayune distinction I made about 'native' to XP:

I wrote:

	It may be "elegant" but it doesn't actually work within the
	scope of what I described ("solution native to XP and TI103" ;-)

To which you (Tony) responded:

	I have directory C:\Program Files\Windows Resource Kits\Tools\
	in PATH and C:\Program Files\Windows Resource Kits\Tools\sleep.exe
	in that directory, so it certainly works for me.

In my experience (and I make no claim that this is universally the case),
one of the more avoidable frequent causes of programming errors (and in
turn, of home automation failures) is unmet dependencies.

I've been bitten so many times by minor differences in computer setups
that I instinctively avoid solutions that are apt to get broken with (eg)
an OS upgrade. This goes back to the days of DOS when most machines were
customized with all manner of handy-dandy *.com files and TSRs of various
sorts.

In the case in point, if you upgrade the OS or transfer your HA stuff to
another machine, the 'native' solution ( the batch file) that I offered,
will still work.  If you do the same with the sleep.exe external, and
forget to add the external executable deep within a path, your program
gets broken in an insidious way.

Because there is no functional difference between the two solutions, I
*greatly* prefer the robust, 'native' one to one that is susceptible to
getting broken -- especially in the context of home automation.

One can reduce the likelihood of a future problem by making a _local_ copy
of your 5,120-byte sleep.exe utility, or the  121-byte sleep.com that I
showed how to create with debug (which of _those_ is more 'elegant' ? ;-)
in the same directory as the batch file.

In short: It wouldn't occur to me (based on my experiences) to depend on
an optional extra to the OS buried where I am almost certain to forget
about it, i.e., PATHed  C:\Program Files\Windows Resource
Kits\Tools\sleep.exe. At minimum, I'd comment the batch file to note that
sleep is an external in XP.

YMMV  ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org