This is not the intended usage of IOIOLooper. You're supposed to have only
one IOIOLooperProvider per app and the framework will use it to create your
IOIOLooper implementations, one per possible IOIO connection.
>From the setup() method of your looper you can create as many threads as
you want, passing them the IOIO instance, in case you want to do stuff in
parallel. The IOIO APIs are all thread-safe. Make sure those threads are
either killed explicitly or exit upon a ConnectionLostException.
A common pattern around I2C devices is to have a class per device driver,
which is initialized with a TwiMaster and an I2C address. For example:
class MyI2CDevice {
public MyI2CDevice(TwiMaster twi, byte address) {
...
}
public DoStuff() throws ConnectionLostException, InterruptedException {
twi_.writeRead(address_, ...);
}
}
Then, instantiate this guy from your Looper's setup() method and poll it
("DoStuff()") from either loop() or a separate thread.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Mark Melvin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi There,
>
> I am developing a PC app that will utilize a couple different aspects of
> the IOIO. In particular, I am starting with the TWI (I2C) and GPIOs. I
> have implemented a nice TWI class that is also a IOIOLooperProvider, and it
> works well. Now that I am starting to implement my GPIO stuff, I find
> myself polluting my TWI class with GPIO code. Looking more into the API, I
> thought of two approaches:
>
> 1) Have a single, more multi-purpose IOIOLooper that creates the TWI
> interface and hands it off to the TWI class, and also manages the GPIO
> stuff.
>
> 2) Create two separate IOIOLoopers that each do their own thing, and
> somehow get two of them up and running over one USB connection to the board.
>
> I know I can implement #1, but this makes a pretty specific IOIOLooper
> that does everything, while #2 seems like a more flexible and generic
> approach, but I don't know if this is possible or even the intent of the
> API. What is the intended way to do this? A brief look at the code seems
> to indicate it might be possible, but I can't tell yet if multiple
> IOIOLoopers can share the same connection or if they are intended to be
> used one per connection.
>
> Thanks in advance for any advice,
> Mark.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "ioio-users" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ioio-users.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"ioio-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ioio-users.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
