Re: BSC - Distributed intelligence DRAFT

["Mark Harrison \(Yahoo!\)" <mph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

1: That would be nice.

2: I'm happy to start looking at this, but it strikes me that the times
when
we've had the most success with interoperability schema are when they are
INCREDIBLY simple. I'd like to start with a simple "BSC
Association"... that
simple devices could support. Once THAT is working, we can look at
extending
to more complex stuff.

Mark




----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Lidstone (Personal e-mail)"
<patrick@xxxxxxx>
To: <xAP_developer@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 4:37 PM
Subject: RE: [xAP_developer] BSC - Distributed intelligence DRAFT


> A couple of thoughts:
>
> 1. There have a been a number of occasions where we have proposed
> null-bodies as part of "probes" or "requests".
Perhaps the spec
> should be revised to make messages with no body at all legal?
> If anyone is concerned about backwards compatibility, we could
> do this by using a new header (xap-request perhaps?), although
> I don't like this very much.
>
> 2. The current schema doesn't allow for any translation between
> the source and target mapping. Perhaps this is overcomplicating
> a straight forward concept, but the most obvious extension would
> be to allow for (a) inverted operation (switch=on, light=off /
> switch=off, light=on), and (b) timed/pulse operation (switch=on,
> output fires for x secs. A simple way of dealing with this would
> be to allow an association to include a condition name, value
> pair. We could then extend the condition capabilities as
> real-world needs arise.
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>