Re: [Hamlib-stationserver] Terminology

[Greg T. <gd...@le...>]

Tony Langdon <vk...@gm...> writes:

>> So, I think the first thing is to define the scope and that's best
>> driven by some example use cases.
> Yep.  Some of the examples I had in mind:
>
> 1.  Single machine use.  Stationserver and the client both run on the 
> same machine, communicationg via localhost.  This is functionally 
> equivalent to running Hamlib, except that the client doesn't need to 
> know what make and model of radio it is using - instead it can 
> communicate using a generic protocol, and can get information about the 
> radio's capabilities from the server.

So by use case, I meant one level up: a story about how programs did
things to radios and how people people interacted wtih  the programs,
that didn't presuppose that there was a thing called stationserver.
Basically, I'm trying to suggest that the existence of stationserver is
a possible system architecture after requirements are understood.  I'm
still not really clear on what ought to happen, and what sorts of things
would be supported - and even what's wrong with the world now.