[visurfacereader] Re: Poll on flexibility versus ease

  • From: "David Reynolds" <dkreynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <visurfacereader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 10:47:10 +0100



Yes, that does sound a bit boring. The second method would be fine, as long
as you had one or two templates. If there was a piece of equipment which was
entirely different, we'd have to go through the long process of creating
another template, but I can't see this happening very much (famous last







From: visurfacereader-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:visurfacereader-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Burgess
Sent: 25 June 2012 09:52
To: visurfacereader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [visurfacereader] Poll on flexibility versus ease




I'm finalising the code for reading LED lamps and there's a trade-off to
handle.  The current design allows you to define named states (e.g. on, off,
flashing, red, rein, etc.) for each LED that you define.  This is very
flexible and will survive any conceivable LED implementation that a
manufacturer could come up with.  The downside is that, if you've got a
protocol that defines 50 lamps, each of which supports 5 states, you've got
to define a total of 250 states, which is boring at best.  A work-around
would be to provide a check box that, if checked, would make all LED lamp
interpretation for the protocol point to a single set of state definitions.
From a code point of view this is a bit of a cop-out, so I'd appreciate
feedback on what behaviour users would prefer to experience.  


I'm under a reasonable amount of time pressure, so I'll have to make a
decision within the next 48 hours or so, so please have a think and respond.


Best wishes.


Tim Burgess

Raised Bar Ltd

Phone:  +44 (0)1827 719822


Don't forget to vote for improved access to music and music technology at






Other related posts: