Re: [Hamlib-stationserver] Philosophy: Abstraction vs Rig Interface Artifacts

[Tony L. <vk...@gm...>]

On 5/03/2014 7:38 AM, Art Botterell wrote:
> On Mar 3, 2014, at 9:20 PM, Tony Langdon <vk...@gm...> wrote:
>> That's probably a good starting point, though in the long run I'd like
>> the backends to be definitions, rather than actual code.
> Great point.  I'll add something along the lines of "wherever possible, permit user configuration of radio interfaces by means of properties tables or other easily-edited mechanisms" in the next rev.
Yep.  It would be good if we can use Hamlib as an interim transition 
mechanism, but I think it's best to have user configuration as much as 
possible.  That said, I'm sure we will encounter new technologies that 
do require code to be written.  How will we handle radios that are 
capable of having multiple simultaneous receivers, for instance? (e.g. 
the TAPR HPSDR software defined radios can have up to 7 receivers 
independently running at the same time).

-- 
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com