RE: IMPORTANT xAP Basic Status and Control

[Kevin Hawkins]

Ok - no shouts of dissent so I declare the xAP basic status and control
proposal as accepted.

I shall now re-code my xAP C-Bus interface to use these. Please bear in
mind
that this should be supported by all applications as the standard way to do
things. Of course you may add your own more fully featured schemas, bells
and whistles as well.

Although this will mainly only affect xAP applications that control a
hardware device, there are some existing software apps that will benefit
from using the schema and policy too. We may need to revisit things like
the
X10 xAP to ensure they conform. There is also an overlap area where
software 'devices' or 'endpoints' within an application may be best
represented as individual UID's - meaning that they supply a status or
informational content.

With the possibility of container applications I think we may see the need
for one container to possibly masquerade it's several components as
individual different UID's each with none or more hardware subs. Meaning
that within say FFxxxx00 there may be a need to use several xxxx values
from one container. FF122300 FF122301 FF122302 FF122400 FF122500 etc.

Kevin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Hawkins [mailto:<a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=GWvnMs3MywSGB88syFJS-QSA2NTxuUCSflg-ideETNl_mHnOw19kWHRB1Xu_gqVS_KfPEo-Bvba7NHa3Sypht9M">lists@u...</a>]
> Sent: 23 October 2003 16:03
> To: <a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=jnOZnLkrZ9GmxBUcK9xdoFR6Z6GFn8wDjQcDCuyivp3HBpnOyKeOhySSaxLsUDrwel58IGWWq-XEx_ObSkVKzzRoXwPxGg">xAP_developer@xxxxxxx</a>
> Subject: RE: [xAP_developer] IMPORTANT xAP Basic Status and Control
>
> Just to remind everyone - only a week left to comment on this - so far
> no
> negatives so speak now if you have concerns....
>
> Ian - I think it is you that this impacts most so if you have any
> thoughts,
> or concerns - beyond your original response on this then please chip
in
> - we
> two are the first ones at the hardware end of this issue. I wouldn't
> want
> to railroad something that didn't mesh well with your board...
>
> Kevin
>
> PS Thanks to StuartP for 'Distilling' it ! Now no-ones got an excuse
> not to
> read it...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin Hawkins
> > Sent: 16 October 2003 03:15
> > To: <a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=jnOZnLkrZ9GmxBUcK9xdoFR6Z6GFn8wDjQcDCuyivp3HBpnOyKeOhySSaxLsUDrwel58IGWWq-XEx_ObSkVKzzRoXwPxGg">xAP_developer@xxxxxxx</a>
> > Subject: [xAP_developer] IMPORTANT xAP Basic Status and Control
> > If you have an opinion then read it and PLEASE comment. As
this
> > has
> > not been very productive in the past I have had 'the nod' that
the
> > approach
> > with this will be that if no major objections are raised and no
> > alternate
> > proposal made then it will become adopted as 'the way to do it'
at
> the
> > end
> > of this month. So speak now or forever hold you peace. Please
> note
> > though
> > that I want comment and discussion, and would love to hear
> alternate
> > and
> > better solutions. This was just my way of reaching a solution
that
> > allows me
> > to ship my product. Be prepared to offer an alternate solution
> though !
>
>
>