From: Ron B. <rb...@be...> - 2011-06-28 15:15:03
|
I am going to be replacing EagleEye motion sensors with 2420s but need to clarify some areas of confusion on my part. While searching the news group I came across a post/script by Mark Kendrick for the Insteon Motion Sensor. Here is a portion of Mark's post: #######start post########### Here's my mht file: INSTEON_PLM, PLM, INSTEON_KEYPADLINC, 16.DE.A0:01, insteon_entry_light, All_Lights|mbr_both, INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR, 14.32.4E, insteon_entry_motion_south, Entry_Motion, INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR, 14.36.77, insteon_entry_motion_north, Entry_Motion, LIGHT, insteon_entry_light, entry_light MOTION, insteon_entry_motion_south, entry_motion_south MOTION, insteon_entry_motion_north, entry_motion_north And here's my user code file: my $entry_timer = new Timer; if($state = state_now $entry_light) { print_log(" STATE: entry light $state"); } if(state_now $entry_motion_south eq "motion" or state_now $entry_motion_north eq "motion") { print_log(" ENTRY MOTION"); set $entry_light ON; set $entry_timer 30; } if(expired $entry_timer) { print_log(" TIMER EXPIRED FOR ENTRY"); set $entry_light OFF; } #######end post############# These are my questions regarding this post/script: question 1. The mht file defines "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" which is not "defined" in my insteon svn branch. It would be my guess that the motion sensor would now be defined as an "IPLD" device. Would this be because the insteon branch reworked how devices would be defined and that Mark was using an earlier branch? question2. This post/scipt suggests/implies that the motion sensor is defined through the web interface and that the script references it in the resulting mht file. Is it possible to define an insteon device within a script and do something like this: $insteon_entry_motion_south = new IPLD('14.32.4E', 'insteon_entry_motion_south'); Or must insteon devices be defined in the mht file to allow correct linking prior to utilization in scripts? TIA, Ron -- http://www.usefulramblings.org http://www.lonesomecow.org |
From: Marc M. <ma...@me...> - 2011-06-28 15:25:47
|
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:14:30AM -0400, Ron Blout wrote: > I am going to be replacing EagleEye motion sensors with 2420s but need > to clarify some areas of confusion on my part. > > While searching the news group I came across a post/script by Mark > Kendrick for the Insteon Motion Sensor. > > Here is a portion of Mark's post: > > #######start post########### > > Here's my mht file: > > INSTEON_PLM, PLM, > INSTEON_KEYPADLINC, 16.DE.A0:01, insteon_entry_light, All_Lights|mbr_both, > INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR, 14.32.4E, insteon_entry_motion_south, Entry_Motion, > INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR, 14.36.77, insteon_entry_motion_north, Entry_Motion, > LIGHT, insteon_entry_light, entry_light > MOTION, insteon_entry_motion_south, entry_motion_south > MOTION, insteon_entry_motion_north, entry_motion_north > > > > And here's my user code file: > > my $entry_timer = new Timer; > > if($state = state_now $entry_light) { > print_log(" STATE: entry light $state"); > } > if(state_now $entry_motion_south eq "motion" or > state_now $entry_motion_north eq "motion") { > print_log(" ENTRY MOTION"); > set $entry_light ON; > set $entry_timer 30; > } > if(expired $entry_timer) { > print_log(" TIMER EXPIRED FOR ENTRY"); > set $entry_light OFF; > } > > > > #######end post############# > > These are my questions regarding this post/script: > > question 1. > The mht file defines "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" which is not "defined" in > my insteon svn branch. It would be my guess that the motion sensor > would now be defined as an "IPLD" device. Would this be because the > insteon branch reworked how devices would be defined and that Mark was > using an earlier branch? No. That's what I use too: INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR, 11.8E.1C, gar_mos1, Sensors # v1.1 > question2. > This post/scipt suggests/implies that the motion sensor is defined > through the web interface and that the script references it in the > resulting mht file. Is it possible to define an insteon device within a > script and do something like this: > > $insteon_entry_motion_south = new IPLD('14.32.4E', > 'insteon_entry_motion_south'); > > > Or must insteon devices be defined in the mht file to allow correct > linking prior to utilization in scripts? I have not tried, but I have all my devices defined in my items.mht file. I think you could add them early at startup time, but if you add them at runtime later, I don't think the insteon code necessarily deals with that. For one you'll miss the initial scan that sets default values for all. Shorter answer: I don't really know either way, sorry :) Marc -- "A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R. Microsoft is to operating systems .... .... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ |
From: Gregg L. <gr...@li...> - 2011-06-28 15:50:33
|
On 6/28/2011 11:14 AM, Ron Blout wrote: > I am going to be replacing EagleEye motion sensors with 2420s but need > to clarify some areas of confusion on my part. > > While searching the news group I came across a post/script by Mark > Kendrick for the Insteon Motion Sensor. > > Here is a portion of Mark's post: > > #######start post########### > > Here's my mht file: > > INSTEON_PLM, PLM, > INSTEON_KEYPADLINC, 16.DE.A0:01, insteon_entry_light, > All_Lights|mbr_both, > INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR, 14.32.4E, insteon_entry_motion_south, > Entry_Motion, > INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR, 14.36.77, insteon_entry_motion_north, > Entry_Motion, > LIGHT, insteon_entry_light, entry_light > MOTION, insteon_entry_motion_south, entry_motion_south > MOTION, insteon_entry_motion_north, entry_motion_north > > > > And here's my user code file: > > my $entry_timer = new Timer; > > if($state = state_now $entry_light) { > print_log(" STATE: entry light $state"); > } > if(state_now $entry_motion_south eq "motion" or > state_now $entry_motion_north eq "motion") { > print_log(" ENTRY MOTION"); > set $entry_light ON; > set $entry_timer 30; > } > if(expired $entry_timer) { > print_log(" TIMER EXPIRED FOR ENTRY"); > set $entry_light OFF; > } > > > > #######end post############# > > These are my questions regarding this post/script: > > question 1. > The mht file defines "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" which is not "defined" in > my insteon svn branch. It would be my guess that the motion sensor > would now be defined as an "IPLD" device. Would this be because the > insteon branch reworked how devices would be defined and that Mark was > using an earlier branch? INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR is defined for the only insteon branch that exists. IPLD is the old method that persists in trunk only. Mark's example is reflective of the existing insteon branch. > question2. > This post/scipt suggests/implies that the motion sensor is defined > through the web interface and that the script references it in the > resulting mht file. Is it possible to define an insteon device within a > script and do something like this: > > $insteon_entry_motion_south = new IPLD('14.32.4E', > 'insteon_entry_motion_south'); > > > Or must insteon devices be defined in the mht file to allow correct > linking prior to utilization in scripts? The sequence is that all mht files are processed first. There is dependence upon items defined within a mht file; so, it is important that they be put in the appropriate order w/i an mht file. But, it sounds like you're not talking about mht dependence but rather script dependence. So, following mht processing, the mh startup logic "pulls" all of the object/item declarations from the scripts out and executes that code first. That means that any script that relies on a declaration will be satisfied. That being said, I don't use the web interface for new item creation; so, I have no idea what happens to objects declared in this way. Presumably, there's no real difference and they are persisted via mht or derived pl files. Gregg |
From: Ron B. <rb...@be...> - 2011-06-28 16:47:20
|
Gregg Liming wrote: > On 6/28/2011 11:14 AM, Ron Blout wrote: >> I am going to be replacing EagleEye motion sensors with 2420s but need >> to clarify some areas of confusion on my part. >> >> While searching the news group I came across a post/script by Mark >> Kendrick for the Insteon Motion Sensor. >> >> Here is a portion of Mark's post: >> >> #######start post########### >> >> Here's my mht file: >> >> INSTEON_PLM, PLM, >> INSTEON_KEYPADLINC, 16.DE.A0:01, insteon_entry_light, >> All_Lights|mbr_both, >> INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR, 14.32.4E, insteon_entry_motion_south, >> Entry_Motion, >> INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR, 14.36.77, insteon_entry_motion_north, >> Entry_Motion, >> LIGHT, insteon_entry_light, entry_light >> MOTION, insteon_entry_motion_south, entry_motion_south >> MOTION, insteon_entry_motion_north, entry_motion_north >> >> >> >> And here's my user code file: >> >> my $entry_timer = new Timer; >> >> if($state = state_now $entry_light) { >> print_log(" STATE: entry light $state"); >> } >> if(state_now $entry_motion_south eq "motion" or >> state_now $entry_motion_north eq "motion") { >> print_log(" ENTRY MOTION"); >> set $entry_light ON; >> set $entry_timer 30; >> } >> if(expired $entry_timer) { >> print_log(" TIMER EXPIRED FOR ENTRY"); >> set $entry_light OFF; >> } >> >> >> >> #######end post############# >> >> These are my questions regarding this post/script: >> >> question 1. >> The mht file defines "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" which is not "defined" in >> my insteon svn branch. It would be my guess that the motion sensor >> would now be defined as an "IPLD" device. Would this be because the >> insteon branch reworked how devices would be defined and that Mark was >> using an earlier branch? > > INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR is defined for the only insteon branch that exists. > IPLD is the old method that persists in trunk only. Gregg help me out here. on my MH box i did the foloowing 1. defined a new directory called mh_svn_062811 2. svn checkout https://misterhouse.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/misterhouse/trunk mh_svn_062811 )(this according to the wiki docs) 3. cd $HOME/mh_svn_062811/bin 4. mh& 5. went into the web interface for MH and brought up the mht file editor 6. under "create" there is no "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" only INSTEON_PLM, Insteon Device(IPLD), Insteon Link(IPLL). So where is the lastest insteon branch which contains "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR"? I must have retrieved an incorrect release/branch of INSTEON. ron > > Mark's example is reflective of the existing insteon branch. > >> question2. >> This post/scipt suggests/implies that the motion sensor is defined >> through the web interface and that the script references it in the >> resulting mht file. Is it possible to define an insteon device within a >> script and do something like this: >> >> $insteon_entry_motion_south = new IPLD('14.32.4E', >> 'insteon_entry_motion_south'); >> >> >> Or must insteon devices be defined in the mht file to allow correct >> linking prior to utilization in scripts? > > The sequence is that all mht files are processed first. There is > dependence upon items defined within a mht file; so, it is important > that they be put in the appropriate order w/i an mht file. But, it > sounds like you're not talking about mht dependence but rather script > dependence. So, following mht processing, the mh startup logic "pulls" > all of the object/item declarations from the scripts out and executes > that code first. That means that any script that relies on a > declaration will be satisfied. That being said, I don't use the web > interface for new item creation; so, I have no idea what happens to > objects declared in this way. Presumably, there's no real difference > and they are persisted via mht or derived pl files. > > Gregg > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. > Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security > threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes > sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 > ________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from this list, go to: http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=1365 > > -- http://www.lonesomecow.org http://www.usefulramblings.org |
From: Marc M. <ma...@me...> - 2011-06-28 16:50:27
|
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:46:55PM -0400, Ron Blout wrote: > 5. went into the web interface for MH and brought up the mht file editor > 6. under "create" there is no "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" only > INSTEON_PLM, Insteon Device(IPLD), Insteon Link(IPLL). > > So where is the lastest insteon branch which contains > "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR"? > > I must have retrieved an incorrect release/branch of INSTEON. No, it's just that none of us use the editor and edit the file by hand. Simply the editor has not been updated with the new types yet. Marc -- "A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R. Microsoft is to operating systems .... .... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ |
From: Eloy P. <pe...@ch...> - 2011-06-28 17:08:53
|
Hi Marc, Ron, On 06/28/2011 12:50 PM, Marc MERLIN wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:46:55PM -0400, Ron Blout wrote: >> 5. went into the web interface for MH and brought up the mht file editor >> 6. under "create" there is no "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" only >> INSTEON_PLM, Insteon Device(IPLD), Insteon Link(IPLL). >> >> So where is the lastest insteon branch which contains >> "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR"? >> >> I must have retrieved an incorrect release/branch of INSTEON. > > No, it's just that none of us use the editor and edit the file by hand. > Simply the editor has not been updated with the new types yet. Actually, Ron checked out from trunk instead of the "insteon" branch. This is the command he used: svn checkout https://misterhouse.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/misterhouse/trunk mh_svn_062811 This explains why "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" is not available for him. Ron, to check out the "insteon" branch you'd use this command: svn checkout https://misterhouse.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/misterhouse/branches/insteon <destination dir> After the initial check out, just go into <destination dir> and run "svn update" to get the latest updates from the repository. Cheers, Eloy.- |
From: Ron B. <rb...@be...> - 2011-06-28 17:15:46
|
Marc MERLIN wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:46:55PM -0400, Ron Blout wrote: >> 5. went into the web interface for MH and brought up the mht file editor >> 6. under "create" there is no "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" only >> INSTEON_PLM, Insteon Device(IPLD), Insteon Link(IPLL). >> >> So where is the lastest insteon branch which contains >> "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR"? >> >> I must have retrieved an incorrect release/branch of INSTEON. > > No, it's just that none of us use the editor and edit the file by hand. > Simply the editor has not been updated with the new types yet. 1001, 1002, 1003, ... the latest branch defines new insteon types that the editor does not support??? and the editor continues to support obsolete insteon types? How is one to know this? I know that a lot of people are making great effort to stabilize the insteon release so I am not meaning to be critical, but how are new users of insteon to have a fighting chance of success if the basics are not in place? mas tequila :>) > > Marc -- http://www.lonesomecow.org http://www.usefulramblings.org |
From: Ron B. <rb...@be...> - 2011-06-28 17:21:03
|
Ron Blout wrote: > > > Marc MERLIN wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:46:55PM -0400, Ron Blout wrote: >>> 5. went into the web interface for MH and brought up the mht file editor >>> 6. under "create" there is no "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" only >>> INSTEON_PLM, Insteon Device(IPLD), Insteon Link(IPLL). >>> >>> So where is the lastest insteon branch which contains >>> "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR"? >>> >>> I must have retrieved an incorrect release/branch of INSTEON. >> >> No, it's just that none of us use the editor and edit the file by hand. >> Simply the editor has not been updated with the new types yet. > > 1001, 1002, 1003, ... the latest branch defines new insteon types that > the editor does not support??? and the editor continues to support > obsolete insteon types? How is one to know this? I know that a lot of > people are making great effort to stabilize the insteon release so I am > not meaning to be critical, but how are new users of insteon to have a > fighting chance of success if the basics are not in place? > > mas tequila :>) guys disregard the above. I had not received the "other" posts pointing out that I had NOT gotten the latest release. the "tequila" comment is still valid :>) > >> >> Marc > -- http://www.lonesomecow.org http://www.usefulramblings.org |
From: Gregg L. <gr...@li...> - 2011-06-28 17:27:41
|
On 6/28/2011 1:20 PM, Ron Blout wrote: > > > Ron Blout wrote: >> >> >> Marc MERLIN wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:46:55PM -0400, Ron Blout wrote: >>>> 5. went into the web interface for MH and brought up the mht file editor >>>> 6. under "create" there is no "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" only >>>> INSTEON_PLM, Insteon Device(IPLD), Insteon Link(IPLL). >>>> >>>> So where is the lastest insteon branch which contains >>>> "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR"? >>>> >>>> I must have retrieved an incorrect release/branch of INSTEON. >>> >>> No, it's just that none of us use the editor and edit the file by hand. >>> Simply the editor has not been updated with the new types yet. >> >> 1001, 1002, 1003, ... the latest branch defines new insteon types that >> the editor does not support??? and the editor continues to support >> obsolete insteon types? How is one to know this? I know that a lot of >> people are making great effort to stabilize the insteon release so I am >> not meaning to be critical, but how are new users of insteon to have a >> fighting chance of success if the basics are not in place? >> >> mas tequila :>) > > guys disregard the above. I had not received the "other" posts pointing > out that I had NOT gotten the latest release. > > the "tequila" comment is still valid :>) The editor hasn't been revised in the branch. At this point, that's the last of my concerns and most users that are prepared to use the branch (which is in alpha state at best) wouldn't use the web editor any way (I have to be reminded that it even exists). So, I would say that the users currently running the insteon branch nominally know that there are plenty of pieces that don't yet work. And, in case anyone is wondering... the insteon branch is definitely not a candidate for the release that is being discussed. That being said, I'll see if I can find the place in the web editor so that I can at least get rid of the old obsolete entries. Gregg |
From: Mark K. <ae...@gm...> - 2011-06-28 18:49:03
|
To Ron's credit, the Insteon section on the MH wiki<http://misterhouse.wikispaces.com/Insteon>is terribly outdated and doesn't even mention the Insteon branch or the fragile nature of Insteon support in trunk. If you're not familiar with SVN and branching, as I am, you're going to be especially lost. I'm willing to write updated content there or elsewhere if it makes sense - let me know how and where. Better explanation of what folks are getting into with the branch, or even Insteon+MH in general, would probably get the branch done faster because less time would be spent managing expectations and fielding questions on stuff that just "isn't there yet". -- Mark On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:27, Gregg Liming <gr...@li...> wrote: > On 6/28/2011 1:20 PM, Ron Blout wrote: > > > > > > Ron Blout wrote: > >> > >> > >> Marc MERLIN wrote: > >>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:46:55PM -0400, Ron Blout wrote: > >>>> 5. went into the web interface for MH and brought up the mht file > editor > >>>> 6. under "create" there is no "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" only > >>>> INSTEON_PLM, Insteon Device(IPLD), Insteon Link(IPLL). > >>>> > >>>> So where is the lastest insteon branch which contains > >>>> "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR"? > >>>> > >>>> I must have retrieved an incorrect release/branch of INSTEON. > >>> > >>> No, it's just that none of us use the editor and edit the file by hand. > >>> Simply the editor has not been updated with the new types yet. > >> > >> 1001, 1002, 1003, ... the latest branch defines new insteon types that > >> the editor does not support??? and the editor continues to support > >> obsolete insteon types? How is one to know this? I know that a lot of > >> people are making great effort to stabilize the insteon release so I am > >> not meaning to be critical, but how are new users of insteon to have a > >> fighting chance of success if the basics are not in place? > >> > >> mas tequila :>) > > > > guys disregard the above. I had not received the "other" posts pointing > > out that I had NOT gotten the latest release. > > > > the "tequila" comment is still valid :>) > > The editor hasn't been revised in the branch. At this point, that's the > last of my concerns and most users that are prepared to use the branch > (which is in alpha state at best) wouldn't use the web editor any way (I > have to be reminded that it even exists). So, I would say that the > users currently running the insteon branch nominally know that there are > plenty of pieces that don't yet work. And, in case anyone is > wondering... the insteon branch is definitely not a candidate for the > release that is being discussed. > > That being said, I'll see if I can find the place in the web editor so > that I can at least get rid of the old obsolete entries. > > Gregg > > > |
From: Gregg L. <gr...@li...> - 2011-06-28 18:56:24
|
Hi Mark, On 6/28/2011 2:48 PM, Mark Kendrick wrote: > To Ron's credit, the Insteon section on the MH wiki > <http://misterhouse.wikispaces.com/Insteon> is terribly outdated and > doesn't even mention the Insteon branch or the fragile nature of Insteon > support in trunk. If you're not familiar with SVN and branching, as I > am, you're going to be especially lost. The branch is deliberately not mentioned because it's not yet at a point that mass usage is helpful. Trunk remains the "stable" insteon version. > I'm willing to write updated content there or elsewhere if it makes > sense - let me know how and where. > > Better explanation of what folks are getting into with the branch, or > even Insteon+MH in general, would probably get the branch done faster > because less time would be spent managing expectations and fielding > questions on stuff that just "isn't there yet". The support in branch is moving sufficiently rapidly that it probably doesn't make much sense to keep anything written on branch up to date. It also invites people to start testing in areas that aren't yet helpful. Once the handful of people that are already using it give their "thumbs up", then suggesting that others adopt it will be appropriate. That's still a ways off. That being said, anything that you might contribute that does not address the branch would be very much welcomed. > > > > -- Mark > > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:27, Gregg Liming <gr...@li... > <mailto:gr...@li...>> wrote: > > On 6/28/2011 1:20 PM, Ron Blout wrote: > > > > > > Ron Blout wrote: > >> > >> > >> Marc MERLIN wrote: > >>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:46:55PM -0400, Ron Blout wrote: > >>>> 5. went into the web interface for MH and brought up the > mht file editor > >>>> 6. under "create" there is no "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" only > >>>> INSTEON_PLM, Insteon Device(IPLD), Insteon Link(IPLL). > >>>> > >>>> So where is the lastest insteon branch which contains > >>>> "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR"? > >>>> > >>>> I must have retrieved an incorrect release/branch of INSTEON. > >>> > >>> No, it's just that none of us use the editor and edit the file > by hand. > >>> Simply the editor has not been updated with the new types yet. > >> > >> 1001, 1002, 1003, ... the latest branch defines new insteon > types that > >> the editor does not support??? and the editor continues to support > >> obsolete insteon types? How is one to know this? I know that a > lot of > >> people are making great effort to stabilize the insteon release > so I am > >> not meaning to be critical, but how are new users of insteon to > have a > >> fighting chance of success if the basics are not in place? > >> > >> mas tequila :>) > > > > guys disregard the above. I had not received the "other" posts > pointing > > out that I had NOT gotten the latest release. > > > > the "tequila" comment is still valid :>) > > The editor hasn't been revised in the branch. At this point, that's the > last of my concerns and most users that are prepared to use the branch > (which is in alpha state at best) wouldn't use the web editor any way (I > have to be reminded that it even exists). So, I would say that the > users currently running the insteon branch nominally know that there are > plenty of pieces that don't yet work. And, in case anyone is > wondering... the insteon branch is definitely not a candidate for the > release that is being discussed. > > That being said, I'll see if I can find the place in the web editor so > that I can at least get rid of the old obsolete entries. > > Gregg > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. > Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security > threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes > sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 > > > > ________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from this list, go to: http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=1365 > |
From: Marc M. <ma...@me...> - 2011-06-28 19:33:46
|
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 01:20:38PM -0400, Ron Blout wrote: > > 1001, 1002, 1003, ... the latest branch defines new insteon types that > > the editor does not support??? and the editor continues to support > > obsolete insteon types? How is one to know this? I know that a lot of > > people are making great effort to stabilize the insteon release so I am > > not meaning to be critical, but how are new users of insteon to have a > > fighting chance of success if the basics are not in place? > > > > mas tequila :>) > > guys disregard the above. I had not received the "other" posts pointing > out that I had NOT gotten the latest release. It doesn't matter. I think virtually none of the insteon users use the editor and edit the file by hand. For sure none of the insteon branch users use it. Therefore it has not been kept in sync. Code in misterhouse only changes when someone who cares about it updates it. There isn't really anyone doing the cleanup and sync work of making sure all the pieces fit right, especially the pieces that one might not use oneself. For what it's worth, the Insteon docs http://misterhouse.wikispaces.com/Insteon does not mention anything about using the editor, so until someone ensure it works and updates the doc to mention so, it's not supported effectively :) On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:48:56AM -0700, Mark Kendrick wrote: > To Ron's credit, the Insteon section on the MH > wiki<http://misterhouse.wikispaces.com/Insteon>is terribly outdated I beg to differ :) > and doesn't even mention the Insteon branch or the fragile nature of > Insteon support in trunk. If you're not familiar with SVN and branching, > as I am, you're going to be especially lost. Actually insteon in trunk is not fragile. It si the most stable support in mh. The insteon branch is the fragile code that has just gotten close to usable for most of what the main branch does, in these past days (literally). When the insteon branch is deemed good enough to be a replacement for the main branch, it'll be a good time to update the docs. Otherwise people just starting out should still pretend it does not exist. > Better explanation of what folks are getting into with the branch, or even > Insteon+MH in general, would probably get the branch done faster because > less time would be spent managing expectations and fielding questions on > stuff that just "isn't there yet". I don't think much time has been lost on that. This is the first main thread that comes to mind. For things to go faster, it's more a matter of helping Gregg with useful reports and/or code. Marc -- "A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R. Microsoft is to operating systems .... .... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ |
From: Gregg L. <gr...@li...> - 2011-06-28 17:07:54
|
On 6/28/2011 12:46 PM, Ron Blout wrote: [... snip ...] > Gregg help me out here. > > on my MH box i did the foloowing > 1. defined a new directory called mh_svn_062811 > 2. svn checkout > https://misterhouse.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/misterhouse/trunk Nope. The "trunk" at the end means trunk. If you want the insteon branch, then use: https://misterhouse.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/misterhouse/branches/insteon > mh_svn_062811 )(this according to the wiki docs) > 3. cd $HOME/mh_svn_062811/bin > 4. mh& > 5. went into the web interface for MH and brought up the mht file editor > 6. under "create" there is no "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" only > INSTEON_PLM, Insteon Device(IPLD), Insteon Link(IPLL). Yeah, that's old because nothing in the web interface has been changed. If using the branch, don't define items using the web interface. > > So where is the lastest insteon branch which contains > "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR"? > > I must have retrieved an incorrect release/branch of INSTEON. > > ron > >> >> Mark's example is reflective of the existing insteon branch. >> >>> question2. >>> This post/scipt suggests/implies that the motion sensor is defined >>> through the web interface and that the script references it in the >>> resulting mht file. Is it possible to define an insteon device within a >>> script and do something like this: >>> >>> $insteon_entry_motion_south = new IPLD('14.32.4E', >>> 'insteon_entry_motion_south'); >>> >>> >>> Or must insteon devices be defined in the mht file to allow correct >>> linking prior to utilization in scripts? >> >> The sequence is that all mht files are processed first. There is >> dependence upon items defined within a mht file; so, it is important >> that they be put in the appropriate order w/i an mht file. But, it >> sounds like you're not talking about mht dependence but rather script >> dependence. So, following mht processing, the mh startup logic "pulls" >> all of the object/item declarations from the scripts out and executes >> that code first. That means that any script that relies on a >> declaration will be satisfied. That being said, I don't use the web >> interface for new item creation; so, I have no idea what happens to >> objects declared in this way. Presumably, there's no real difference >> and they are persisted via mht or derived pl files. >> >> Gregg >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >> ________________________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe from this list, go to: http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=1365 >> >> > |
From: Timothy S. <spa...@ic...> - 2011-06-28 20:07:08
|
The main trunk will support the 2420m as I use it. You would define it in the .mht file as you showed in a previous mail: IPLD, <insteon address>, <object name>, [groups (I think)], PLM (however you defined Insteon_PLM above), 1001 (devcat for the MotionSensor * think) Sorry, I don't have mine handy to be exact. -----Original Message----- From: Ron Blout [mailto:rb...@be...] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 3:35 PM To: mis...@li... Subject: Re: [mh] insteon questions regarding the 2420M insteon motion sensor Gregg Liming wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On 6/28/2011 2:48 PM, Mark Kendrick wrote: >> To Ron's credit, the Insteon section on the MH wiki >> <http://misterhouse.wikispaces.com/Insteon> is terribly outdated and >> doesn't even mention the Insteon branch or the fragile nature of Insteon >> support in trunk. If you're not familiar with SVN and branching, as I >> am, you're going to be especially lost. > > The branch is deliberately not mentioned because it's not yet at a point > that mass usage is helpful. Trunk remains the "stable" insteon version. > >> I'm willing to write updated content there or elsewhere if it makes >> sense - let me know how and where. >> >> Better explanation of what folks are getting into with the branch, or >> even Insteon+MH in general, would probably get the branch done faster >> because less time would be spent managing expectations and fielding >> questions on stuff that just "isn't there yet". > > The support in branch is moving sufficiently rapidly that it probably > doesn't make much sense to keep anything written on branch up to date. > It also invites people to start testing in areas that aren't yet > helpful. Once the handful of people that are already using it give > their "thumbs up", then suggesting that others adopt it will be > appropriate. That's still a ways off. > > That being said, anything that you might contribute that does not > address the branch would be very much welcomed. > >> >> >> >> -- Mark >> Mark/Gregg The release of MH that I am running with was originally taken from "trunk" several months ago. I am able to sucessfully control the two insteon devices I have along with the X10 stuff less motion sensors. question: do you believe the release I have would support the 2420M motion sensor if I manually edit the mht file to contain: INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR, {device_addr}, insteon_entry_motion_south, Entry_Motion, or do you believe this trunk release would NOT understand "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR". What code could I look at to see if "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" is supported in this code branch. At this point I would like to determine if the branch I have would support the 2420M and how to define it within the mht file. >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:27, Gregg Liming<gr...@li... >> <mailto:gr...@li...>> wrote: >> >> On 6/28/2011 1:20 PM, Ron Blout wrote: >> > >> > >> > Ron Blout wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Marc MERLIN wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:46:55PM -0400, Ron Blout wrote: >> >>>> 5. went into the web interface for MH and brought up the >> mht file editor >> >>>> 6. under "create" there is no "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" only >> >>>> INSTEON_PLM, Insteon Device(IPLD), Insteon Link(IPLL). >> >>>> >> >>>> So where is the lastest insteon branch which contains >> >>>> "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR"? >> >>>> >> >>>> I must have retrieved an incorrect release/branch of INSTEON. >> >>> >> >>> No, it's just that none of us use the editor and edit the file >> by hand. >> >>> Simply the editor has not been updated with the new types yet. >> >> >> >> 1001, 1002, 1003, ... the latest branch defines new insteon >> types that >> >> the editor does not support??? and the editor continues to support >> >> obsolete insteon types? How is one to know this? I know that a >> lot of >> >> people are making great effort to stabilize the insteon release >> so I am >> >> not meaning to be critical, but how are new users of insteon to >> have a >> >> fighting chance of success if the basics are not in place? >> >> >> >> mas tequila :>) >> > >> > guys disregard the above. I had not received the "other" posts >> pointing >> > out that I had NOT gotten the latest release. >> > >> > the "tequila" comment is still valid :>) >> >> The editor hasn't been revised in the branch. At this point, that's the >> last of my concerns and most users that are prepared to use the branch >> (which is in alpha state at best) wouldn't use the web editor any way (I >> have to be reminded that it even exists). So, I would say that the >> users currently running the insteon branch nominally know that there are >> plenty of pieces that don't yet work. And, in case anyone is >> wondering... the insteon branch is definitely not a candidate for the >> release that is being discussed. >> >> That being said, I'll see if I can find the place in the web editor so >> that I can at least get rid of the old obsolete entries. >> >> Gregg >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe from this list, go to: http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=1365 >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. > Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security > threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes > sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 > ________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from this list, go to: http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=1365 > > -- http://www.lonesomecow.org http://www.usefulramblings.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 ________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from this list, go to: http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=1365 |
From: Ron B. <rb...@be...> - 2011-06-28 20:15:54
|
Timothy Spaulding wrote: > The main trunk will support the 2420m as I use it. > > You would define it in the .mht file as you showed in a previous mail: > > IPLD,<insteon address>,<object name>, [groups (I think)], PLM (however you defined Insteon_PLM above), 1001 (devcat for the MotionSensor * think) > > Sorry, I don't have mine handy to be exact. Tim, Thanks for taking the time to reply. I will purchase one and give it a try. Ron > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Blout [mailto:rb...@be...] > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 3:35 PM > To: mis...@li... > Subject: Re: [mh] insteon questions regarding the 2420M insteon motion sensor > > > > Gregg Liming wrote: >> Hi Mark, >> >> On 6/28/2011 2:48 PM, Mark Kendrick wrote: >>> To Ron's credit, the Insteon section on the MH wiki >>> <http://misterhouse.wikispaces.com/Insteon> is terribly outdated and >>> doesn't even mention the Insteon branch or the fragile nature of Insteon >>> support in trunk. If you're not familiar with SVN and branching, as I >>> am, you're going to be especially lost. >> >> The branch is deliberately not mentioned because it's not yet at a point >> that mass usage is helpful. Trunk remains the "stable" insteon version. >> >>> I'm willing to write updated content there or elsewhere if it makes >>> sense - let me know how and where. >>> >>> Better explanation of what folks are getting into with the branch, or >>> even Insteon+MH in general, would probably get the branch done faster >>> because less time would be spent managing expectations and fielding >>> questions on stuff that just "isn't there yet". >> >> The support in branch is moving sufficiently rapidly that it probably >> doesn't make much sense to keep anything written on branch up to date. >> It also invites people to start testing in areas that aren't yet >> helpful. Once the handful of people that are already using it give >> their "thumbs up", then suggesting that others adopt it will be >> appropriate. That's still a ways off. >> >> That being said, anything that you might contribute that does not >> address the branch would be very much welcomed. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- Mark >>> > > Mark/Gregg > > The release of MH that I am running with was originally taken from > "trunk" several months ago. I am able to sucessfully control the two > insteon devices I have along with the X10 stuff less motion sensors. > > question: do you believe the release I have would support the 2420M > motion sensor if I manually edit the mht file to contain: > > INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR, {device_addr}, insteon_entry_motion_south, > Entry_Motion, > > or do you believe this trunk release would NOT understand > "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR". What code could I look at to see if > "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" is supported in this code branch. > > At this point I would like to determine if the branch I have would > support the 2420M and how to define it within the mht file. > >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:27, Gregg Liming<gr...@li... >>> <mailto:gr...@li...>> wrote: >>> >>> On 6/28/2011 1:20 PM, Ron Blout wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > Ron Blout wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Marc MERLIN wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:46:55PM -0400, Ron Blout wrote: >>> >>>> 5. went into the web interface for MH and brought up the >>> mht file editor >>> >>>> 6. under "create" there is no "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" only >>> >>>> INSTEON_PLM, Insteon Device(IPLD), Insteon Link(IPLL). >>> >>>> >>> >>>> So where is the lastest insteon branch which contains >>> >>>> "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR"? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I must have retrieved an incorrect release/branch of INSTEON. >>> >>> >>> >>> No, it's just that none of us use the editor and edit the file >>> by hand. >>> >>> Simply the editor has not been updated with the new types yet. >>> >> >>> >> 1001, 1002, 1003, ... the latest branch defines new insteon >>> types that >>> >> the editor does not support??? and the editor continues to support >>> >> obsolete insteon types? How is one to know this? I know that a >>> lot of >>> >> people are making great effort to stabilize the insteon release >>> so I am >>> >> not meaning to be critical, but how are new users of insteon to >>> have a >>> >> fighting chance of success if the basics are not in place? >>> >> >>> >> mas tequila :>) >>> > >>> > guys disregard the above. I had not received the "other" posts >>> pointing >>> > out that I had NOT gotten the latest release. >>> > >>> > the "tequila" comment is still valid :>) >>> >>> The editor hasn't been revised in the branch. At this point, that's the >>> last of my concerns and most users that are prepared to use the branch >>> (which is in alpha state at best) wouldn't use the web editor any way (I >>> have to be reminded that it even exists). So, I would say that the >>> users currently running the insteon branch nominally know that there are >>> plenty of pieces that don't yet work. And, in case anyone is >>> wondering... the insteon branch is definitely not a candidate for the >>> release that is being discussed. >>> >>> That being said, I'll see if I can find the place in the web editor so >>> that I can at least get rid of the old obsolete entries. >>> >>> Gregg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >>> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >>> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >>> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________________________ >>> To unsubscribe from this list, go to: http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=1365 >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >> ________________________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe from this list, go to: http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=1365 >> >> > -- http://www.lonesomecow.org http://www.usefulramblings.org |
From: Marc M. <ma...@me...> - 2011-06-28 20:16:41
|
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 07:51:47PM +0000, Timothy Spaulding wrote: > The main trunk will support the 2420m as I use it. > > You would define it in the .mht file as you showed in a previous mail: > > IPLD, <insteon address>, <object name>, [groups (I think)], PLM (however you defined Insteon_PLM above), 1001 (devcat for the MotionSensor * think) Correct. Here's mine: IPLD, 11.8E.1C, gar_mos1, Sensors, PLM,1001 # v1.1 This is given in the example file at http://misterhouse.wikispaces.com/Insteon and documented here http://misterhouse.wikispaces.com/Insteon+Devices+-+Quirks+and+Hints#Motion%20Sensor We kind of spent a lot of time back and forth on all this for stuff that is properly documented online :-/ Marc -- "A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R. Microsoft is to operating systems .... .... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ |
From: Ron B. <rb...@be...> - 2011-06-28 19:35:36
|
Gregg Liming wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On 6/28/2011 2:48 PM, Mark Kendrick wrote: >> To Ron's credit, the Insteon section on the MH wiki >> <http://misterhouse.wikispaces.com/Insteon> is terribly outdated and >> doesn't even mention the Insteon branch or the fragile nature of Insteon >> support in trunk. If you're not familiar with SVN and branching, as I >> am, you're going to be especially lost. > > The branch is deliberately not mentioned because it's not yet at a point > that mass usage is helpful. Trunk remains the "stable" insteon version. > >> I'm willing to write updated content there or elsewhere if it makes >> sense - let me know how and where. >> >> Better explanation of what folks are getting into with the branch, or >> even Insteon+MH in general, would probably get the branch done faster >> because less time would be spent managing expectations and fielding >> questions on stuff that just "isn't there yet". > > The support in branch is moving sufficiently rapidly that it probably > doesn't make much sense to keep anything written on branch up to date. > It also invites people to start testing in areas that aren't yet > helpful. Once the handful of people that are already using it give > their "thumbs up", then suggesting that others adopt it will be > appropriate. That's still a ways off. > > That being said, anything that you might contribute that does not > address the branch would be very much welcomed. > >> >> >> >> -- Mark >> Mark/Gregg The release of MH that I am running with was originally taken from "trunk" several months ago. I am able to sucessfully control the two insteon devices I have along with the X10 stuff less motion sensors. question: do you believe the release I have would support the 2420M motion sensor if I manually edit the mht file to contain: INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR, {device_addr}, insteon_entry_motion_south, Entry_Motion, or do you believe this trunk release would NOT understand "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR". What code could I look at to see if "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" is supported in this code branch. At this point I would like to determine if the branch I have would support the 2420M and how to define it within the mht file. >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:27, Gregg Liming<gr...@li... >> <mailto:gr...@li...>> wrote: >> >> On 6/28/2011 1:20 PM, Ron Blout wrote: >> > >> > >> > Ron Blout wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Marc MERLIN wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:46:55PM -0400, Ron Blout wrote: >> >>>> 5. went into the web interface for MH and brought up the >> mht file editor >> >>>> 6. under "create" there is no "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" only >> >>>> INSTEON_PLM, Insteon Device(IPLD), Insteon Link(IPLL). >> >>>> >> >>>> So where is the lastest insteon branch which contains >> >>>> "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR"? >> >>>> >> >>>> I must have retrieved an incorrect release/branch of INSTEON. >> >>> >> >>> No, it's just that none of us use the editor and edit the file >> by hand. >> >>> Simply the editor has not been updated with the new types yet. >> >> >> >> 1001, 1002, 1003, ... the latest branch defines new insteon >> types that >> >> the editor does not support??? and the editor continues to support >> >> obsolete insteon types? How is one to know this? I know that a >> lot of >> >> people are making great effort to stabilize the insteon release >> so I am >> >> not meaning to be critical, but how are new users of insteon to >> have a >> >> fighting chance of success if the basics are not in place? >> >> >> >> mas tequila :>) >> > >> > guys disregard the above. I had not received the "other" posts >> pointing >> > out that I had NOT gotten the latest release. >> > >> > the "tequila" comment is still valid :>) >> >> The editor hasn't been revised in the branch. At this point, that's the >> last of my concerns and most users that are prepared to use the branch >> (which is in alpha state at best) wouldn't use the web editor any way (I >> have to be reminded that it even exists). So, I would say that the >> users currently running the insteon branch nominally know that there are >> plenty of pieces that don't yet work. And, in case anyone is >> wondering... the insteon branch is definitely not a candidate for the >> release that is being discussed. >> >> That being said, I'll see if I can find the place in the web editor so >> that I can at least get rid of the old obsolete entries. >> >> Gregg >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. >> Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security >> threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes >> sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe from this list, go to: http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=1365 >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. > Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security > threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes > sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 > ________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from this list, go to: http://sourceforge.net/mail/?group_id=1365 > > -- http://www.lonesomecow.org http://www.usefulramblings.org |
From: Marc M. <ma...@me...> - 2011-06-28 20:03:09
|
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 03:35:10PM -0400, Ron Blout wrote: > The release of MH that I am running with was originally taken from > "trunk" several months ago. I am able to sucessfully control the two > insteon devices I have along with the X10 stuff less motion sensors. > > question: do you believe the release I have would support the 2420M > motion sensor if I manually edit the mht file to contain: > > INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR, {device_addr}, insteon_entry_motion_south, > Entry_Motion, > > or do you believe this trunk release would NOT understand > "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR". What code could I look at to see if > "INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR" is supported in this code branch. Trunk does not support the INSTEON_MOTIONSENSOR syntax. Please refer to the mh insteon wiki for the proper supported syntax in trunk. For what it's worth, I have had a motion sensor with trunk for 2 years and it's worked fine. Just in case it wasn't clear, the insteon branch isn't mentioned in the docs because it's not quite ready for use by people who don't already have a working insteon config with trunk and are generally familiar with both insteon and mh. It'll get there, probably soon now, but it's not quite there today. Marc -- "A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R. Microsoft is to operating systems .... .... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ |