Re: Moving to TSC?

["jlgalindo" <jlgalindo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I will need the TSC capabilites in a near future, to develop an
application for a rabbit microcontroller, so I'm with Daniel and the others
for a final implementation of the TSC schema or another solution to work
with real numbers and units, maybe it's possible to add this feature to the
BSC schema, for example adding optional fields like "value" and
"unit".

Jose Luis

--- In xAP_developer@xxxxxxx, Kevin Hawkins <yahoogroupskh@...>
wrote:
>
> I did take a look at including TSC in my xAP gateway (although there
> wasn't a real need for it).  In the end I couldn't practically support
> it all and some aspects I found confusing so I backed it out.  I think
> it's important that TSC is an 'all or nothing' implementation as
> otherwise it won't achieve seamless interoperability.
>
> K
>
>   On 29/03/2010 13:29, Daniel Berenguer wrote:
> > This is something that we can't postpone IMO. Although I had
expected  a higher interest on this subject, I agree with Lehane in that
someone should take the first step and try to implement TSC into a
controller. This would give us a better idea about the strengths and
weakness of TSC in embedded devices and maybe will inspire other developers
as well.
> >
> > In a few weeks, Kevin H and me are going to work on a TSC
implementation for opn-mbs. This will give us the opportunity to take a
more practical glance at the issue. We'll come back then with new questions
so we'll be able to start a debate in a proper way.
> >
> > Daniel.
> >
> >
> > --- In xAP_developer@xxxxxxx, "Daniel
Berenguer"<dberenguer@>  wrote:
> >
> >> I support Lehane's proposal about re-working TSC. I think
that, with some minor changes, TSC could become pretty usable, even for
embedded devices with current BSC support.
> >>
> >> Daniel.
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In xAP_developer@xxxxxxx, "Lehane Kellett
(g8kmh)"<g8kmh@>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Kevin,
> >>> I think xAPBSC and TSC can only co-exist in some simpler
devices - my
> >>> current (only) implementation is for the TOM10 where (a)
the code is C#
> >>> .NET and so space isn't an issue and (b) the xAPBSC
implementation
> >>> hasn't changed from a previous version. Where the
complexity of TSC is
> >>> required then xAPBSC may be a subset, typically I'd
expect for
> >>> status/reporting purposes rather than control, although
gross control
> >>> (on/off) could be either.
> >>>
> >>> Given the status of TSC and the low number of adopters
maybe we should
> >>> look at some revisions or even deprecation of some
elements in order to
> >>> help adoption?
> >>>
> >>> Lehane
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I had always envisaged BSC and TSC both existing side
by side and
> >>>> hopefully being supported by nearly all devices. My
hope with TSC was
> >>>> that it would be sufficiently similar to BSC that it
could share large
> >>>> areas of code and not really incur any extra overhead
in supporting both
> >>>> rather than just say TSC. In a way TSC being BSC with
extra parameters
> >>>> and a relaxation of some constraints on existing ones
(eg decimal
> >>>> places, negative values etc). Obviously by it's
nature TSC will be
> >>>> more involved than BSC.
> >>>>
> >>>> At this stage I'm feeling we haven't quite achieved
that but maybe
> >>>> others don't agree with an intention ever to try and
do so ? Having
> >>>> played a little with TSC it doesn't present that
commonality - maybe
> >>>> that's the nature of the beast - but I have a few
reservations about the
> >>>> schema and had great difficulty in creating a
sensible model to
> >>>> implement it alongside BSC. Lehane - have you
actually got both BSC
> >>>> and TSC fully implemented in your embedded devices ?
> >>>>
> >>>> K
> >>>>
> >>>> On 22/03/2010 17:29, Daniel Berenguer wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Thanks Kevin and Lehane for your responses.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>  From an academic point of view, I agree in
that BSC and TSC
> >>>>>>
> >>>> shouldn't be mutually exclusive. However, managing
multiple schemas
> >>>> into embedded devices is sometimes hard to do, mainly
if both schemas
> >>>> don't follow identical mechanisms. Embedded
controllers have limited
> >>>> flash space and the UDP parsing must be done in a
very dynamic way.
> >>>> Thus, I would prefer to deal with a single schema for
embedded
> >>>> devices. That's all. Other more powerful controllers
like opn-max
> >>>> could manage (and map) as many schemas as nedded.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On the other hand, this kind of discussions could
be addressed in a
> >>>>>
> >>>> future thread. At this moment, I just wanted to know
about other xAP
> >>>> developers currently working (or planning to work) on
a xAP TSC
> >>>> implementation.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Daniel.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In xAP_developer@xxxxxxx
> >>>>>
> >>>> <mailto:xAP_developer%40yahoogroups.com>,
Kevin T<kevin@>  wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Gents
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Personaly I have never regarded TSC as a
replacement for BSC. I am
> >>>>>>
> >>>> sure this
> >>>>
> >>>>>> was not the intention.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have always regarded TSC more as a better
way of handing analog
> >>>>>>
> >>>> rather
> >>>>
> >>>>>> than digital vaules. The handling of analogs
within BSC was always a
> >>>>>> compromise and TSC was the answer.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Where I have tried to implement TSC it has
always been alongside
> >>>>>>
> >>>> BSC, and
> >>>>
> >>>>>> sometimes even alongside other schema like
xap-temperature. There is no
> >>>>>> reason for the schema to be mutually
exclusive, they can co-exist,
> >>>>>>
> >>>> and/or
> >>>>
> >>>>>> you coulld chose to tuyrn one or the other
off
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Kevin T
> >>>>>> (the other Kevin)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 22 March 2010 06:49, Lehane Kellett
(g8kmh)<g8kmh@>  wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Daniel,
> >>>>>>> I think one reason for the current lack
of TSC adoption is there
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> are few
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> devices supporting it, none public AFAIK.
Hammering out the
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> remaining issues
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> shouldn't prove too difficult.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A more widescale adoption would, I think,
take xAP adoption to a
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> new level.
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't see why TSC shouldn't be adopted
by Floorplan (James has
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> some hooks
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> in already) and other widely used
applications/mappers over time
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> but right
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> now there is no motivation to do so.
Chicken and Egg.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>> Lehane
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Daniel Berenguer wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> After reading Kevin's post about the
necessity to migrate to xAP TSC
> >>>>>>> for actual telemetry applications I've
being considering doing the
> >>>>>>> jump for my recent projects. First of
all, I wanted to do a first try
> >>>>>>> on opn-mbs, my Modbus opnode. I didn't
like how data was being pushed
> >>>>>>> into the BSC text field where data and
units had to coexist most of
> >>>>>>> the time. For my own projects, I never
add the units at the end of the
> >>>>>>> text field because this complicates data
parsing on other BSC
> >>>>>>> applications but some other applications
need to know which kind of
> >>>>>>> data is being transported by any BSC
message. This is what I call the
> >>>>>>> "plug and play" feature. A
temperature controller can understand the
> >>>>>>> data sent by temperature sensors with
very little programming on the
> >>>>>>> controller.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Some protocols like J1939, Zigbee and KNX
specify the type of data
> >>>>>>> transported each time so converting these
data to xAP BSC would make
> >>>>>>> us consider the following scenarios:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1. Lose of information. BSC doesn't
inform about the type of data
> >>>>>>> transmitted.
> >>>>>>> 2. Add units at the end of the BSC text
field
> >>>>>>> 3. Add proprietary field
("units", "type" or whatever else)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As you can see, moving to TSC is
something technically useful IMO
> >>>>>>> although we should address some pending
issues regarding the current
> >>>>>>> TSC draft too. However, what bothers me
is that BSC is the most
> >>>>>>> implemented schema and abandoning it
would reduce interoperability to
> >>>>>>> the TSC products. Obviously, we should
combine both BSC and TSC
> >>>>>>> schemas, at least during the first years,
in order to guarantee
> >>>>>>> interoperability with current BSC
solutions but this is something not
> >>>>>>> desirable because of the increment of the
xAP code footprint.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Based on the above reasoning, I'd always
vote for enriching xAP BSC
> >>>>>>> instead of abandoning it regardless of
TSC's advantages.
> >>>>>>> Interoperability and the current BSC
implementations are the best
> >>>>>>> "heritage" of xAP IMO so we
should take this kind of decisions very
> >>>>>>> carefully. But instead of starting a new
controversy, I want to do a
> >>>>>>> simple question to the active xAP
developers:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How many among you are willing to
move/implement TSC into your current
> >>>>>>> BSC applications in the short term?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I wouldn't want my controllers to become
a TSC island into the BSC
> >>>>>>> sea. As any other I/O device, they need
interoperability with major
> >>>>>>> software like HomeSeer, HouseBot,
Mr.House or Xlobby but haven't heart
> >>>>>>> about any intention to do the jump for
these applications.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks guys for your feedback.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Daniel Berenguer
> >>>>>>> http://www.usapiens.com<http://www.usapiens.com>
> >>>>>>> http://www.opnode.org<http://www.opnode.org>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>




------------------------------------