Re: [mh] Base_Item.pl Issue (Motion_Item, X10_Sensor)

[Jim D. <ji...@du...>]

 > Yes--I added that on Jun 25 when working on a related problem.  As you
 > noted, RF_Item can't process a set_receive and therefore needs to be
 > removed.  I don't recall what problem was reported that caused me to
 > add it; but removing does seem appropriate.  Since I added it, I also 
just
 > committed the change to remove it.  A better solution--if there is an
 > issue--is to add $$self{m_write} = 0 to RF_Item's constructor so that
 > the entire chain is avoided.  Sorry about introducing this bug.
 >

Thanks Gregg.

 > The MS10A uses a security protocol that isn't part of the existing
 > X10_Sensor parsing ability.  Therefore, differing code is required.
 > Perhaps a better approach would be to specify a different X10-like tag
 > (albeit different from X10MS) to make things a bit more intuitive.
 >

Do you see any reason for not using "RF"?

Jim


Gregg Liming wrote:
> Jim Duda wrote:
> 
>> Can't locate object method "set_receive" via package "RF_Item" at
>> /home/misterhouse/mh/bin/../lib/Base_Item.pm line 167.
>>
>> Looking at Base_Item.pm, we have this:
>>
>> if (UNIVERSAL::isa($obj, 'X10_Sensor') or UNIVERSAL::isa($obj,
>> 'RF_Item')) {			
>>   $obj->set_receive($p_state, $self, $p_response);
>> } else {
>>   $obj->set($p_state,$self,$p_response);
>> }
>>
>> This cannot possibly work, since RF_Item is a "Generic_Item" and has no
>> set_receive method.  Only X10_Item has a set_recieve method (and its
>> decendents).
> 
> Yes--I added that on Jun 25 when working on a related problem.  As you 
> noted, RF_Item can't process a set_receive and therefore needs to be 
> removed.  I don't recall what problem was reported that caused me to add 
> it; but removing does seem appropriate.  Since I added it, I also just 
> committed the change to remove it.  A better solution--if there is an 
> issue--is to add $$self{m_write} = 0 to RF_Item's constructor so that 
> the entire chain is avoided.  Sorry about introducing this bug.
> 
>> Can anyone explain why "X10MS" fails to work but "RF" does?
> 
> The MS10A uses a security protocol that isn't part of the existing 
> X10_Sensor parsing ability.  Therefore, differing code is required. 
> Perhaps a better approach would be to specify a different X10-like tag 
> (albeit different from X10MS) to make things a bit more intuitive.
> 
> Gregg
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
> Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
> Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
> http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
> ________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to: http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=1365
> 
>