Re: One way BSC ?

["Brett England" <brett@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'd have to agree with you on this one.  Either implement the BSC spec
in its entirety or create your own class - don't just implement that bits
that you need and call it a day.

--- In xap_automation@xxxxxxx, Kevin Hawkins <yahoogroupskh@...>
wrote:
>
>   I've noticed a couple of  xAP devices /applications appearing that
are
> implementing BSC as senders only , either just being lazy or because
> they have no receive capability and hence can not respond to a
> xapbsc.query or xapbsc.cmd.   These report their input states using
> xAPBSC.info / xAPBSC.event  as it is so pervasively supported.
>
> Some of these are of necessity senders only as they are bridging from
> another schema or even protocol,  for example xPL, which lacks support
> for UID's ,  sub addressing and the wildcard constructs xAP BSC uses.
> Some applications with inbuilt bridging implement  this mapping using
a
> 1 way BSC.
>
> My immediate reaction was that such '1-way' devices don't meet the BSC
> specification and hence must not use BSC - i.e. BSC if implemented
must
> be bidirectional.  I looked up the BSC spec and it reads that all 4
> schema classes should be implemented.  How do others feel ?  Maybe we
> should allow (identify) an inputs only  '1 way' version of BSC somehow
?
>
>
>     Kevin
>
> PS  For those wanting a good solution HouseBot allows creating virtual
> xAP BSC endpoints and also  bridging schema as it maintains a true
> bidirectional endpoint and can be scripted to schema translate.
>




------------------------------------