Re: Topic 1: Base Level Status Schema

[Stuart Booth]

On Wed, 28 May 2003 18:15:29 +0100, "Kevin Hawkins"
<<a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=aMI46bazjka0dMTnYMfz5fBDZ2OOrsUM5BvaYUiKxFIbO9DC22ZnRQlTYqGPgNZSVNAYQ1uFwn7aXMn8Vnd-yQ">lists@u...</a>>
wrote:

> We must also address the issue of a Status response from a xAPp that
>has several outputs - which should, if it adheres to the spec contain
>several hardware sub addresses and also alter it's UID for each
separate I/O
>end point (or terminal). It's clear that if we target a specific output
end
>point (which currently is only possible via addressing not UID) then a
>status response relates directly to one terminal and the above scenario
>works - what should happen when a status request is sent to the xAP
itself -
>one that may have several I/O ports that it services. Clearly I think
the
>device should respond with the state of all of it's inputs and outputs
but
>should it do this with one body or should it split each into a separate
body
>somehow identified through the header or perhaps issue multiple xAP
messages
>one for each I/O ?? This has a ramification on how tidy and basic we
can
>make a basic status schema.

This reminds me of what I've been wondering about James' News feed. If
you included data in the block name you can include the status of each
port in a separate message block in the message body, and use the same
format for each block.

Is there any scope of including instance data in the block name format
e.g. Block.Name:Instance ?

I've preferred to have data variables inside the blocks though. It's
data, not a type, after all.

S
--
Stuart Booth
xAPFramework.net - a reusable xAP framework for .net

<a href="http://www.xapframework.net/";>http://www.xapframework.net/</a>
<a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=nxiRNbV-XdupjBkSO-dl2Fh2W2PegFk7lS0_KUNCWb_f4_x01VjPNSCSMigJ7oZl23m0A2mwWX8smUhSFuLz">stuart@x...</a>