|
|
|||||||
| RDM General Implementation Discussion General Discussion and questions relating to implementing RDM in a product. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
August 18th, 2011
|
#1 |
|
Task Group Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Franciscio
Posts: 57
|
I agree with Eric. Responders should be strict in what they accept. Anything else encourages sloppy programming on the controller side.
|
|
|
|
September 1st, 2011
|
#2 | |
|
Task Group Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Gothenburg
Posts: 40
|
Quote:
Problem is, that out in the real world the controller is not the piece of equipment that will get the blame if your responder does not work, the user just knows that all other responders he had do work... Hence, the user will blame the responder that does not work. When all responders behave the same way (that is when the standard is no longer open for interpretation), then the controller will get the blame. Compare with the web browser issues... We, who know the details, know that when a site that is W3C compliant that does not show up correctly in IE, but is Webkit based browsers etc, it is IE that is the fault, but the general user does not understand that.
__________________
Michael Karlsson LumenRadio AB |
|
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Correctly handling ACK_OVERFLOW | nomis52 | RDM General Implementation Discussion | 13 | January 29th, 2011 09:25 PM |
| ACK_TIMER Handling | ericthegeek | RDM General Implementation Discussion | 8 | January 20th, 2011 08:15 PM |
| Command Class / Parameter ID mismatch handling | dangeross | RDM Interpretation Questions | 2 | April 16th, 2009 01:39 PM |
Hybrid Mode
