So a resource limited device that can not translate between Fahrenheit
and Celcius will be able to provide and parse the control forms?
From my perspective (being a resource constrained device software
developer) I would prefer a more lightweight approach than the control
forms to discover the fields and their range, units, etc.
A complete slimmer "discover fields" response could be:
...
<fields>
<int name='Temperature' min='-40' max='95' unit='C' />
<int name='Humidity' min='0' max='100' unit='%' />
</fields>
...
Then if it is for humans - all the labels and other things could
be included?
Is the current forms mechanisms intended for machine-to-machine or
machine-to-human?
Best regards,
-- Joakim Eriksson, SICS
Peter Waher skrev 2014-01-15 16:22:
Hello Joakim
The control form provides means to publish limits for control values. See
ยง3.3.1 for examples.
Best regards,
Peter Waher
-----Original Message-----
From: Joakim Eriksson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: den 15 januari 2014 08:51
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Standards] XEP-323 vs XEP-325
Tomasz Sterna skrev 2014-01-15 11:54:
Dnia 2014-01-14, wto o godzinie 11:30 +0100, Joakim Eriksson pisze:
<double name='DesiredRoomTemperature' value='22.0'/> ...
I can understand omitting unit and momentary [...]
I can't understand omitting the unit.
You need to know up front what unit does the control expect.
There's a room for misinterpretation and mistakes like ie.
frying/freezing your plants.
When you specify the unit, at least you give a chance to err-out on
unhandled unit if the control is unable to convert.
Yes, keeping the unit even for control make it possible for the controlled object so do
better error control and "sanity checking".
Is there a good way to inform the controller what are the limits of the values?
E.g. max and min values of the desired room temp?
(have not yet fully read all the XEP-323/325, etc).
Best regards,
-- Joakim Eriksson, SICS
