1. We started using the Windows version of the LTKCPP toolkit. We use the Win32 SmartDevice Project. We have issues with the time function used ltkcpp_connection.cpp. The time function compiles but does not link in this project setting. It links in a normal windows build though. Any ideas? 2. Also, in our linux system, we use NON_BLOCKING IO and do not want to error out on EWOULDBLOCK errors. I have made some changes to the code to support this and would like to propose this to the group shortly.
Arun On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 12:04 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Send llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of llrp-toolkit-devel digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Java conversion from XML to binary (Christian Floerkemeier) > 2. Re: an issue about org.llro.ltk.net in Java LTK > (Christian Floerkemeier) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:43:50 -0400 > From: "Christian Floerkemeier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [ltk-d] Java conversion from XML to binary > To: "'LLRP Toolkit Development List'" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Paul, > > I assume you are refering to the case where a custom extension element is > used in an LTK-XML message that has not been defined in a corresponding > "extensionDef.xml" via the "allowedIn" construct. Is that correct? > > In LTKJava, such an LTK-XML message will currently get validated against the > schema due to the <xs:any ... in LLRP.xsd but since LTKJava does not know > about the extension, the content is never processed. I guess it would be > appropriate to generate at least a warning message. How are the other > implementations handling this issue? > > - Christian > > > > > _____ > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul > Dietrich > Sent: Mittwoch, 11. Juni 2008 18:12 > To: LLRP Toolkit Development List > Subject: [ltk-d] Java conversion from XML to binary > > > > I noticed that when I convert an XML message to binary, it ignores the > custom extension elements. Should this be the behavior or should it error > on the packet? > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:48:46 -0400 > From: "Christian Floerkemeier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [ltk-d] an issue about org.llro.ltk.net in Java LTK > To: "'LLRP Toolkit Development List'" > <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > Li, > > Thank you very much for the bug report and the corresponding patch! We > committed your patch and the issue should be resolved in the latest version > of LTKJava available from cvs. > > - Christian > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of li cuizhu > > Sent: Donnerstag, 5. Juni 2008 04:18 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [ltk-d] an issue about org.llro.ltk.net in Java LTK > > > > Hi, > > I used your llrp toolkit for java in my latest rfid project. > > I am thankful to you because it gave me a great help. > > But I found an issue when I used LLRPConnector to receive > > llrp message from reader. > > Sometimes the llrp message from reader could not be processed > > until the next llrp message comes. > > I checked your source about org.llro.ltk.net carefully and > > found the problem may be here: > > At line 65 in LLRPBinaryDecoder.java: > > > > // if the entire message is already available, > > call doDecode again. > > return (in.remaining()==length-6); > > > > If the count of messages is more than one, the statement > > above will return false, so the received message will not be > > processed. When the next llrp messages come, they will be > > processed together with the last messages in "if > > (session.getAttribute(MESSAGE_LENGTH_KEY) != null)" condition branch. > > I think the correct statement may be like this: > > return (in.remaining()>=length-6); > > > > > > Regards, > > Li > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > ----------- > > Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. > > It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about > > anything Open Source. > > http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php > > _______________________________________________ > > llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. > It's the best place to buy or sell services for > just about anything Open Source. > http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel > > > End of llrp-toolkit-devel Digest, Vol 13, Issue 6 > ************************************************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel
