-Ursprungliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Stephan Sandenbergh
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. November 2008 16:17
An: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Betreff: [time-nuts] Fwd: M12+T ASCII interface - I'm confused?
Hi
Betreff: [time-nuts] Fwd: M12+T ASCII interface - I'm confused?
Hi,
Now I'm slightly confused:
My gut tells me that Checksumcrlf@@ would be
believable
more than say 95% (if not 99%) of the time. I've got the
following
observations:
In the above I assumed no data
Hi,
Now I'm slightly confused:
My gut tells me that Checksumcrlf@@ would be believable more than
say 95% (if not 99%) of the time. I've got the following observations:
In the above I assumed no data length checking is employed.
- 95% is a bad number in accurate timing applications.
Stephan Sandenbergh wrote:
Hi,
Now I'm slightly confused:
My gut tells me that Checksumcrlf@@ would be believable more than
say 95% (if not 99%) of the time. I've got the following observations:
In the above I assumed no data length checking is employed.
- 95% is a bad number in
Sure, I assume you refer to the case when you check the data length as
well? I meant that the Checksumcrlf@@ byte string could also
potentially exist in the data itself, but only in very rare cases
(from there the 95% thumb suck).
The checksum byte can have any value. You can't use it to
I hope you end up liking the binary format; I'm not sure how it could
be improved.
It's a bit ugly that you have to do a table lookup in the packet type to get
the length. That makes it harder to split the transport layer out into a
separate chunk of software.
--
These are my opinions,
tvb wrote:
I hope you end up liking the binary format; I'm not sure how it could
be improved.
IIRC, there's no length field in the packet; so you have to know the length
of all the messages you might possibly rx, even if you are interested in
just a few of them.
-ch
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
christopher hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: tvb wrote:
: I hope you end up liking the binary format; I'm not sure how it could
: be improved.
:
: IIRC, there's no length field in the packet; so you have to know the length
: of all the messages you
