At 03:45 PM 8/23/2006, Frank Brickle wrote: >On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 15:12 -0700, Jim Lux wrote: > > > > Would this conversion of the dsp core of the SDR1000 further imply that > > PowerSDR will not use the C version of dttsp in future versions? Is there > > a schedule for when this might occur? > >Pay attention, please. There is no planned conversion of the DSP core.
Our mails crossed. I understand this now. >And we have nothing to say about PowerSDR. As far as new developements >go, it is EOL. But, what of the planned V1.7 of PowerSDR? Gerald, Eric, Flex officialdom, is this true? > > That is, should someone contemplating writing DSP code for integration > with > > PowerSDR struggle with the existing C dttsp and the C# PowerSDR wrapper > > (since they are quite intertwined)... > >They are *not* quite intertwined, as is perfectly obvious to anybody >who's actually worked with the code, which is why I claim your estimate >of the situation is less than fully-informed. This situation hasn't >changed in over a year. Charges of instability are somewhat misplaced, I >believe. If there are simultaneous changes on both sides of the DLL interface between console and dttsp in the same SVN rev, that's a pretty suspicious sign that the two are coupled fairly tightly. If dttsp (in the PowerSDR fork) had multiple versions that ran against multiple different versions of the console, I'd believe that they are decoupled. Having them coupled tightly isn't necessarily bad. It just means that changes on one side will result in changes on the other, which makes it tough to have a third something that wants to interface with just one or the other. Perhaps it's just an artifact of how revisions get made and released that it appears that this is the case. _______________________________________________ FlexRadio mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
