From: Gregg L. <gr...@li...> - 2004-11-21 03:54:55
|
Quoting Bruce Winter (11/20/04 6:08 PM): >>You are correct. Very low data rate. The only "high" data rate would be >>when a new vocabulary is sent to the VR system. It would be, in the >>worst case, every single voice command and every permutation of these, >>so a few KB total. Not a big deal. I think that would be really cool to >>use the xPL or xAP interface. > > > I agree, we should target xAP (or xPL) as the protocol to use in sending and > receivng VR data from mh to a java Sphinx server. It would be similar to > the TCPIP communications we do with ViaVoice, but done over UDP instead, > with a few extra records for the header data. If you don't want to mess > with that to start with, you can start with a simple socket for sending and > receiving data, I can xAP-ify it here. > I'm thinking of refactoring a java version of a portion of the existing C# xAP Framework.net (http://www.xapframework.net/) --specifically, the xAPTransport portion of the code. The object design looks quite sound and probably wouldn't be too difficult to port to java. I'll need to give a more thorough review of the network/system calls to be sure. As you've already noted from the original xAP_Items.pm code, the differences in xAP vs. xPL protocol from a data perspective are fairly minor. So, to the extent possible, I'd try to make sure that the resulting upper-level API could be extended to support xPL as well. |