Hi Mostafa, this is no good. If you don't tell us why and how you would want to do that, we can't discuss if and how GNU Radio is lacking. Really, the GNU Radio architecture wasn't meant for this kind of flow control, but that's less of a shortcoming than a design choice, keeping flow graph designs a little saner. Neither throttle nor message strobe are controlled by another block, and the latter doesn't even produce items.
Greetings, Marcus On 01.06.2014 19:27, Mostafa Alizadeh wrote: > Activecat, > > I think change my topology to get rid of this things. :) > However, I still believe in that the GNURadio fails in this scenario. > As we have throttle or message_strobe blocks, I need to have a source which > generates items controlled by another block. > > I'll try to see this problem in another way to escape from it! > > > On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Activecat <active...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Mostafa Alizadeh <m.alizade...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Mike, >>> >>> No, the throttle isn't a source! It just controls the flow of items in an >>> specific time interval. I don't want this! I want cognitively tell the >>> source produces the random bits after some special procedures have done (a >>> message can do this for the source). But the scheduler crazily wants the >>> source to produce items! :) >>> >> >> Mostafa, >> >> Why not you tell us what you are trying to accomplish using this flowgraph >> (not this block). >> Give us a big picture of what you try to accomplish, let us figure out the >> implementation details for you. >> >> Chances are there is no problem with gnuradio but with your knowledge >> about gnuradio. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss-gnuradio mailing list > Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
