E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums  

Go Back   E1.20 RDM (Remote Device Management) Protocol Forums > Search Forums
Reload this Page Search Results
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Showing results 1 to 9 of 9
Search took 0.00 seconds. Search: Posts Made By: hamish
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions October 28th, 2010
Replies: 28
Views: 32,254
Posted By hamish
Still to be resolved

This issue is one that remains open and one I discussed at the thin end of the CPWG on Monday. Anyone who was at the last Plugfest may have witnessed the result of testing for 255 self tests, not a...
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions March 31st, 2010
Replies: 28
Views: 32,254
Posted By hamish
Cardinal Index

A PID SUPPORTED_SELFTESTS would in this case be in lieu of SELFTEST_COUNT so no real difference in overhead.
I make the assumption that any responder supporting many self tests will not see an...
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions March 30th, 2010
Replies: 28
Views: 32,254
Posted By hamish
Permitting a cardinal index may be put in the...

Permitting a cardinal index may be put in the same context as for personalities. For consistency, I would suggest that indexes be ordinal from 1.

In the case that an responder does not utilise a...
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions March 30th, 2010
Replies: 28
Views: 32,254
Posted By hamish
BTW

http://www.rdmprotocol.org/forums/showthread.php?t=24

Looks like this one is doing a lap of honour;)
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions March 30th, 2010
Replies: 28
Views: 32,254
Posted By hamish
Going Forwards

Looking toward the future, making SELFTEST_DESCRIPTION mandatory when SELFTEST are supported would be the minimum, adding SELFTEST_COUNT would make everything beautifully simple.

I don't see a...
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions March 30th, 2010
Replies: 28
Views: 32,254
Posted By hamish
You never know!

Gerry

I'm working from the perspective of a generic controller and therefore have to cater for all eventualities. I'd recommend the exercise to anyone who likes a challenge, its like a box of...
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions March 29th, 2010
Replies: 28
Views: 32,254
Posted By hamish
Multifarious consideration

Hi Eric.

Yes, while I agree that's true, would it not also be true to say that a well designed standard would foresee this, as it does (to some extent) with required PIDs?
I have here, a...
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions March 29th, 2010
Replies: 28
Views: 32,254
Posted By hamish
Poke & Hope!

Hi Eric
Agreed.

The unfortunate consequence is that it makes the control application look somewhat hapless. In the event of no description being available, the user must be eloquently asked to...
Forum: RDM Interpretation Questions March 29th, 2010
Replies: 28
Views: 32,254
Posted By hamish
Ouch

A small point to add here, I have found that the PID SELF_TEST_DESCRIPTION may not be implimented.:confused:

This is an area of the standard that could definately benefit from a revision.
...
Showing results 1 to 9 of 9

 
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:55 PM.

Contact Us - RDM Protocol Forums - Archive - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.