Re: IMPORTANT xAP Basic Status and Control

[Stuart Booth]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 17:26:15 -0000, "Kevin Hawkins"
<<a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=MxwCsr9WyAQnYqzjF33MY_zU230D58Qs-4-UsW_im6TSzXrbs89a0ncpP6208GWGU9KZKFH7SVvDU6QaDmAjA0k">lists@u...</a>>
wrote:

>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.

At the moment I'm using FF122300 for the main component 'controller'
(to avoid reusing the word 'hub' in another context), and then
incrementing by 1 for each sub-component that it loads, unless the
individual sub-component overrides it.

This means I need to leave blocks of spare IDs above the base UID.

It felt quite nice to use the hardware subaddress part instead of this
schema though, which I did initially, several months ago now. However,
this knocks out at a stroke the possibility of subaddresses within the
software device itself. I don't think you're suggesting this from your
words above though Kevin! I just tried it for a bit.

Thus I'd end up with something like this:

Controller (FF122300)
+-- Device A (FF122400)
+-- Sub 1 (FF122401)
+-- Sub 2 (FF122402)
+-- Device B (FF122500)

Is that right? Note that the main device has a 00 subaddress, and each
'sub' has its own subaddress value.

S
--
Stuart Booth <<a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=vV4hDaCw5ZIoksVYtp7pbP2Rxo9h-8HKvRtbC9JT0jScAOXefIkHO-2nGZo4fRo12Mrbv133RVlnsG5pvWc">stuart@x...</a>>
xAPFramework.net - a xAP software development framework for .net

<a href="http://www.xapautomation.org/";>http://www.xapautomation.org/</a>
<a href="http://www.xapframework.net/";>http://www.xapframework.net/</a>