On Aug 24, 2009, at 4:17 AM, David wrote: > Hi, > > is there any reason to prefer AMSenderC.AMSend.send over AMSend.send > or vice versa, especially regarding the programming of routing > protocols?
AMSenderC provides a virtualized send queue, with the underlying ActiveMessageC does not. With ActiveMessageC, AMSend.send can return EBUSY and you don't know when to retry, Also, as they protocol that is sending a packet can send another in the sendDone() event, it gets the first shot at a freed radio. This can lead to starvation. AMSenderC isolates clients, making it easier to compose complex systems. The cost of AMSenderC is a tiny amount of extra processing and a few bytes of RAM per client. Phil _______________________________________________ Tinyos-help mailing list [email protected] https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
