Hi Brian, Michal, Pairing down the cc list since we are down to implementation details. On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 15:18 +0000, Gix, Brian wrote: > Hi Inga, Michał, > > On Wed, 2019-09-25 at 19:02 +0000, Stotland, Inga wrote: > > Hi Michal, > > > > On Wed, 2019-09-18 at 10:52 +0200, Michał Lowas-Rzechonek wrote: > > > Hi Brian, > > > > > > > Imagine a dot-matrix, where each pixel is a mesh node. > > > > > > > > Each of these pixels implements two models: > > > > on element 0, a GenericOnOffServer controlling the light > > > > output > > > > on element 1, a Blinkenlights Server model > > > > > > > > Blinkenlights Server extends GenericOnOff Server and > > > > GenericOnOff > > > > Client, and on top of that contains a translation table mapping > > > > group > > > > address to either 'ON' or 'OFF'. > > > > > > > > Now, when Blinkenlights Server receives a GenericOnOff Set > > > > message, > > > > it > > > > looks up the destination address at the translation table, and > > > > sends a > > > > *different* GenericOnOff Set to *its own* element 0, with > > > > target > > > > value > > > > determined by the translation entry. > > > > > > > > This allows users to configure each node in such a way, that > > > > sending a > > > > *single* message to a group address causes all pixels to switch > > > > to > > > > a > > > > preconfigured pattern *at the same time*. > > > > > > Per conversation with Piotr, I'd like to revisit the discussion > > > and > > > provide more details about our use case for models knowing the > > > destination address. > > > > > > Please see a diagram at http://ujeb.se/BmTIW. > > > > > > The main reason we map scenes using destination addresses is that > > > such a > > > setup consumes much less unicast addresses. > > > > > > Assuming that: > > > S - number of switches > > > B - number of buttons (elements) on a switch > > > N - nunber of lamps > > > > > > With a 'regular' case, number of consumed unicast addresses is > > > S*B + N*(B+1) > > > > > > With the destination mapping, it becomes > > > S*B + N*2 > > > > > > Since we typically use 4 button switches (B=4), without > > > translation > > > we > > > consume unicast address space at a *much* faster rate. > > > > > > reagrds > > > > Okay, this is a good argument for exposing the subscription address > > in > > MessageReceived(). > > It's better to separate the method into two, e.g. MessageReceived() > > and > > MessageReceivedVirtual(). > > I wonder if we could still do this with a single method. I can think > of 2 methodologies: > > 1. A simple way that just uses the U16 DST field instead of > the "subscription" boolean (not a 100% reliable differentiator > for Virtuals, but may be sufficient for the use cases given). > > 2. Replacing the subscription boolean with a u32 "Subscription ID". > A subscription ID value of 0x000000000 would indicate that the > message was received with the Unicast address, and values from > 1 - 0xFFFFFFFF mean a Subscription that can be queried for. This > would be accompanied by a new daemon method which could look up > the details of the subscription: > > {dict subcription} LookupSubscription(u32 Sub_ID) > > Both of these methodologies would allow an App to be simpler, > with no added D-Bus Methods required. > > With the 2nd methodology, the subscription only needs to be > looked up once (or not at all) to 100% differentiate between > discrete subscriptions. > > I *really* do not want an additional mandatory App Method. Most > Apps will be simpler than that, and truely not care to > differentiate between subscriptions... Particularily Client > based Apps. While I am still in favor of two distinct methods (given choice, I'd always go with self-explanatory API), one method approach would work as well if accompanied by detailed and clear description in the mesh- api.txt doc. I vote against u16 destination field since there is no reason to create address space collision even though the chances are small. A single method "MessageReceived" method can be modified to include a subscription parameter as: 1) a dictionary with keys "Group" and "Label" (self explanatory if a bit cumbersome). or 2) a u32 subscription ID that represents a subscription. This requires the daemon to maintain the relationship between "id" and the actual address. I believe the daemon does this anyway for virtual labels, but from the API design perspective this is not very clean IMHO, since it has a whiff of implementation details leaking into user interface API. No matter which approach is chosen, the subscriptions must be included in the model configuration dictionary for UpdateModelConfiguration() and in the corresponding dictionary for node configuration returned on successful execution of Attach(). If we go with a single method and a u32 subscription id, the disctionary representation of the subscriptions should be a pair {id, actual subscription address}. This way there is no need for an additional daemon method. Michal, any comments? > > > Then it makes sense to add model subscription array as a dictionary > > entry in the UpdateModelConfiguration() as well as for the node > > configuration returned when calling Attach() method. > > Probably will have to have separate keys: "Groups" and "Virtuals". > > Regards, Inga
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
