Re: new X10 component: medusa-cm11

["tomvdp" <tomvdp@xxxxxxxxx>]

> X10.basic also allows the use of pseudo housecodes Q thru Z (and
> theoretically device codes 17 thru 99 for _all_ house codes), so
matching
> the syntax of x10 commands was never really the aim

Is there any reason for allowing Q through Z etc ?
The specs state level=0 to 100, data1=0 to 255 etc, so valid ranges
are given, but housecode and devicecode are not limited by the X10
standards ?

> Basically how the app handles it is up to the programmer, but I
would expect
> (in the case of A1, B3) to see two x10.confirm messages.
>
> X10 confirm is nothing other than a message received and processed,
it in no
> way suggests that the command was sucessful or not.
>
> Having said all that, the x10.basic documentation could probably do
with
> more clarification in these areas.

Tony, I know you are an authority on this domain.  Are you saying the
specs can be modified such that a confirm may be different from the
original message ?

I quote from the current specs:
<quote>
The command message, if successfully sent onto the powerline, should
be echoed back as a trigger message using the schema X10.CONFIRM. The
message format is the same as the X10.BASIC trigger message shown
above, however the X10.CONFIRM message schema indicates that the
trigger message is purely a response to a command, and not a genuine
incoming X10 message from the powerline.
</quote>

For atomic X10 messages that makes perfect sense.

Regards,
Tom






xPL Links: http://www.xplproject.org.uk http://www.xplhal.com http://www.xpl.myby.co.uk
To Post a Message: ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx
To Subscribe:  ukha_xpl-subscribe@xxxxxxx
To Unsubscribe:  ukha_xpl-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx