RE: IMPORTANT xAP Basic Status and Control

[Kevin Hawkins]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stuart Booth [mailto:<a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=5oMDHwF2gdgvD59o_AKAoPUtjIrCV5B1OARBgC0OiVndlwG549Tdo4bBvFnl6nw-P8bRS5S2C314PjO9">lists@x...</a>]
> Sent: 03 November 2003 18:58
> To: <a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=c4dbPPChpzQ8BTeVIXF5ziHvmJxBWYlXGsA8Gl492CotVajU-6NqLEgQwdJLsBzH0bk9bxodSdcbgkV-0XBzJUx8LuR8-n4">xAP_developer@xxxxxxx</a>
> Subject: Re: [xAP_developer] IMPORTANT xAP Basic Status and Control
>
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 17:26:15 -0000, "Kevin Hawkins"
> <<a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=qY856wUTIgept55T1Xvp549yKnLFSuOmmS14MULwGxMYulCTJgj9So7hN2CR0cIvD4SZfxQVLotDI7_06J0">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.

Yes - or at least be able to select unused UID's somehow - there is no
requirement for them to be consecutive I guess.

>
> 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.

Yes it does seem nice but it's not going to work for the basic device
control as using such a UID will indicate it has endpoints that are
addressable and have control/status. Plus if you did want to support such
things there are no ways then to do it, and to know which app is handling
what.

>
> 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.

Yes - I think that is best - and I do believe that starting your device on
a
FFxxx0xx boundary is logically best - a sort of inference that the last
digit of the centre part may be software subs as such. Or possibly we could
start such container apps with a UID of FFFFxxxx to reflect this status -
thoughts ??

This whole idea of container apps was not really anticipated when we
thought
of the UID's but this seems the best way to accommodate it now. You do get
into awkward issues of how many of the apps should generate heartbeats and
if it is only the container then what happens should a component app hang
or
disappear ?

K