 |
JP1 Remotes
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mathdon
Expert
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 4523
Location: Cambridge, UK
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 2:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| WagonMaster wrote: | | Now I know that whatever extended RDFs that I put into the "master' list, they cannot ever truly be considered the master since your RDFs (and probably other authors' RDFs) will continue to exist apart from the masters. |
I'm totally lost by this. Is the Master of this Master List meaning "I'm the Master and I must be obeyed, use no other RDFs for these remotes but mine", or is it, as I had hoped, meaning "At the time of issue these RDFs are believed to be the most accurate and up-to-date (not the same thing - up-to-date means in terms of the latest RDF Spec) that are currently available".
Of course other RDFs will continue in existence, for both unextended and extended remotes. New or revised RDFs will continue to be posted in the RDF Files section. That's what it is for. I recently revised the RDF for the unextended URC-7780/81 when it was suggested to me, and I agreed, that the names Previous and Next were preferable to Skip- and Skip+. The old one wasn't wrong, but the new one was better. If I revise an RDF for one of my extenders it will be posted in that section. I would hope that it would then be included in the next Compilation. I'm really going off the term "Master List".
_________________
Graham |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
vickyg2003
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 7073
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, I think I am being misunderstood here.
I have submitted SOME of my RDF's to be included in the RDF master. I will continue to keep a copy in the Zip file. Think about it, my zip files will not generally be unzipped in the RDF directory. The user would have to move it to that directory. If it already exists, they'd be prompted to replace a newer rdf with an older rdf. Hopefully the user will be savvy enough not to do this. On the other hand I want a TESTED version included with my Extender, because without a special RDF the extender useless. I also have some extenders out there that were short lived and would not want to add the RDF "clutter" by including them. I really wouldn't want Bill to hunt them up and include them in the latest and greatest.
And as far as Unclemilteies extenders go, I'm just making sure that you check with him, before you go hunting for his RDF's. I've opened other people's JP1.3 extenders only to have them look like total jibberish because I was not using the correct extender RDF. So I really don't know how the hunting of RDF's is going to effect him, but I'd say let him submit them for inclusion rather than hunting for them.
Mike brought up an excellent point
| Quote: | Mr P.D.Gumby wrote:
One possible area of confusion regarding the two-ZIP solution is that existing documention scattered all over the JP1 community directs the user to download the main RDF zip file, and will not mention that extender RDF files are in a separate ZIP file. Ideally, such documentation should be updated, but I would think most extender users would be astute enough to realize that they need to download the extender ZIP as well. |
And I'll add to that. The user has been told to download the RDF's goes to the file and sees RDF's for KM and RM, RDF's for Extended Remotes. This would have sent ME for a loop. Which zip file do I need! Nah the two files sounds much more confusing to me.
_________________
Remember to provide feedback to let us know how the problem was solved and share your upgrades.
Tip: When creating an upgrade, always include ALL functions from the oem remote, even if you never plan on assigning them to a button. Complete function lists makes an upgrade more helpful to others.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Pierson
Expert
Joined: 03 Aug 2003
Posts: 3017
Location: Connecticut, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mathdon wrote: | It doesn't matter that extenders are distributed together with their RDFs, the issue is whether one can open a .ir file from an extended remote without having to download the extender.
There are all sorts of reasons for opening a .ir file for a remote one doesn't have. |
Ok, I'll give you this one! 
However, it's no different than when someone tries to open an IR file from a newer remote (extended or not) who's RDF has not yet been folded into the master file yet. There's always going to be cases like this.
I think everyone needs to realize that there is no absolute answer to this question. There's pro's and con's to both sides of the debate. Having everything "current" in one file is probably the best approach (until such time as the JP1 tools become "dynamic" and can go out on the web and retrieve whatever is missing automatically  ). Yeah... I'm changing my opinion on the matter! 
_________________
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WagonMaster
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 361
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mathdon wrote: | | If you want another view about extender RDFs |
I do -- that's a given. 
| mathdon wrote: | | I strongly advocate having all RDFs, for both unextended and extended remotes, in the same main zip file. |
Thank you... duly noted!
| mathdon wrote: | | It doesn't matter that extenders are distributed together with their RDFs, the issue is whether one can open a .ir file from an extended remote without having to download the extender. |
OK, but be sure you understand... the issue is not whether to include the extended RDFs in the zip or not. The issue is whether to include the extended RDFs in the same zip file as the unextended RDFs or in their own zip file. As I said in my reply to Vicky, "they won't be scattered all over for people to have to go and collect in pieces".
Apologies if you already understood that, but the last bit of that last comment made me think maybe you hadn't. Unless the extender author has been lax in pushing his/her updated RDFs "upstream", there should be no need for a user to actually download the actual extender release just to get the RDF for it.
Thanks for weighing in on this issue. As far as I'm concerned, the more I hear from people, the better off I am in making a decision.
| mathdon wrote: | | I'm totally lost by this. Is the Master of this Master List meaning "I'm the Master and I must be obeyed, use no other RDFs for these remotes but mine", or is it, as I had hoped, meaning "At the time of issue these RDFs are believed to be the most accurate and up-to-date (not the same thing - up-to-date means in terms of the latest RDF Spec) that are currently available". |
The latter. Of course, in most normal cases, there would be no need for distinction. But since we're allowing "outside" RDFs (whether as temporary entries in the "RDF Files" section or in extender authors' zip files), which may or may not be more up-to-date/accurate than the so-called "master", the term "master" is probably inappropriate. I'll try to switch to the term "aggregated" to avoid confusion.
| mathdon wrote: | | If I revise an RDF for one of my extenders it will be posted in that section. I would hope that it would then be included in the next Compilation. |
Your thinking matches my expectations for how it should work. The fact that we have so many singular RDFs in the "RDF Files" section of the forum which have not been incorporated into the aggregate RDF file is proof to me that it needed attention. That's a large part why I volunteered for the job -- that confusing mess has to be fixed.
| Quote: | | I'm really going off the term "Master List". |
A poor (ambiguous) choice of of wording on my part. "Aggregated" is the new word of choice.
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WagonMaster
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 361
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well said, Mike. All good points.
| mr_d_p_gumby wrote: | | At this point, I'm inclined to await further discussion on the subject before voting one way or the other. (Just what you wanted to hear, Bill, right? ) |
Actually, I'm completely OK with that for now. I was planning to let this whole issue "percolate" a bit, awaiting more week-enders in the discussion before trying to make a decision. So there's no harm in chewing on it yourself a while longer.
And, truly, I/we don't really need to make this decision until shortly before I publish the RDF zip file(s). So, while I don't want this to drag on forever, we do have some time for others to "weigh in" on this.
In the spirit of "brainstorming" a bit, I was wondering if it would make sense to have a new option called "Hide Extended Remotes/RDFs" in RM and 'IR.exe'? We have a precedent (in 'IR.exe') for "expert"-style options. Maybe this should be another one? That way, we could continue to distribute all of the RDFs (unextended and extended) in a single file but still have a way to turn the extender-based remote control selection options off for the new users. I'm not sure if I like that idea or not, but I'm throwing it out there for discussion and critique.
That suggestion brings up a question I've been meaning to resolve anyway: How do we really know that an RDF is for an extended remote? I'd already briefly looked into that and came to no conclusion yet. I see that several of the RDFs have have a section titled "[Extender]", which seems like a dead give-away, but a quick couple of commands on the whole RDF set show me that there are 59 RDFs with "extend" in the "Name=" line but only 27 RDFs have an "[Extender]" section, so that can't be the determining criterion. In my preliminary investigation, I could have easily missed a good way to determine if an RDF is extended or not, but if anyone has advice, I'd love to hear it.
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WagonMaster
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 361
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vickyg2003 wrote: | | I also have some extenders out there that were short lived and would not want to add the RDF "clutter" by including them. |
Just curious, then... why are they still out there? Wouldn't it be better to remove them from the public forum and keep them private? I'd argue that if any user might still need these RDFs then they belong on the forum, in the aggregate RDF file/set. If not, then they probably don't belong on a public forum. I'll admit that without knowing all the history, I could easily be missing something, so please correct me if I'm being short-sighted.
| vickyg2003 wrote: | | I really wouldn't want Bill to hunt them up and include them in the latest and greatest. |
I don't want that either, if they're inappropriate for current users.
| vickyg2003 wrote: | | And as far as Unclemilteies extenders go, I'm just making sure that you check with him, before you go hunting for his RDF's. |
I will check with him, but I don't see any harm in trolling the public "Extenders" section for RDFs to be examined before I've discussed this with him (or anyone else). Not that I'd mind a bit if he jumps in here beforehand with a comment. Bear in mind, I'm not planning on pulling anything from the "Diagnosis Area" section of the forum, where there could be any old junk.
| vickyg2003 wrote: | | So I really don't know how the hunting of RDF's is going to effect him, but I'd say let him submit them for inclusion rather than hunting for them. |
Barring clarification of the point I raised earlier, I don't think I agree, but maybe we're disagreeing over syntax. Let's look at it this way.... If an extender author's personally distributed RDF is current (i.e. same as in the aggregate RDF file), then I should see no differences and there are no problems. If it's different, then I need to figure out why, to the extent that's possible. Did the author perhaps fail to push it upstream (i.e. into the "RDF Files" section, for eventual inclusion into the aggregate RDF file)? If so, then I should be able to resolve that and spur the author to help me resolve any discrepancies. Maybe some authors just never gave it any thought and would be happy to have their extender's RDF included in the aggregate RDF file. Maybe there's a valid reason for the difference and it needs to stay that way and the author can educate me on that. But however you look at it, I think the effort is worthwhile.
Vicky, please be assured that I'm not planning to go on an "extended RDF" "round-up" and wildly throw anything I find into the aggregate RDF file! Whatever gets added has to "pass muster" or it won't be included.
Question for all:
By the way, how many extender authors are there? I know of Bill Jackson ('unclemilite'), VickyG, and Graham ('mathdon') for sure, but I suspect there are others that I don't even know about. Also, do we have absentee (AWOL) authors that I won't be able to contact?
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Pierson
Expert
Joined: 03 Aug 2003
Posts: 3017
Location: Connecticut, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WagonMaster wrote: | | By the way, how many extender authors are there? I know of Bill Jackson ('unclemilite'), VickyG, and Graham ('mathdon') for sure, but I suspect there are others that I don't even know about. Also, do we have absentee (AWOL) authors that I won't be able to contact? |
John Fine started all this extender trouble! 
I can't remember if there's anyone else to blame. 
_________________
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mr_d_p_gumby
Expert
Joined: 03 Aug 2003
Posts: 1370
Location: Newbury Park, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Pierson wrote: | | I can't remember if there's anyone else to blame. |
Well Mark, if your memory is getting that bad, then this time Mikey can blame you! 
There have been numerous others who've adapted John's original extender to other remotes. Offhand, I remember that Hal (mtakahar) did the orignal URC-6131 extender, and he seems to be AWOL of late.
_________________
Mike England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Pierson
Expert
Joined: 03 Aug 2003
Posts: 3017
Location: Connecticut, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mr_d_p_gumby wrote: | | Well Mark, if your memory is getting that bad, then this time Mikey can blame you! |
It is, and you can... 
| Quote: | | Offhand, I remember that Hal (mtakahar) did the orignal URC-6131 extender, and he seems to be AWOL of late. |
Yes, you are correct.
_________________
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vickyg2003
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 7073
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh yes, John Fine definately started all of this madness. I remember being quite intrigued with what I was reading in the JP1 forums in 2000. I escaped the madness for 6 years, but eventually I caught it too.
I personally use extenders written by Nils, vasqued2, mr_d_p_gumby, mtakahar and jsevinsk. I'm sure there are a lot of other extender writers that I am unaware of.
| Quote: | | Quote: | vickyg2003 wrote:
I also have some extenders out there that were short lived and would not want to add the RDF "clutter" by including them. |
Just curious, then... why are they still out there? Wouldn't it be better to remove them from the public forum and keep them private? I'd argue that if any user might still need these RDFs then they belong on the forum, in the aggregate RDF file/set. If not, then they probably don't belong on a public forum. I'll admit that without knowing all the history, I could easily be missing something, so please correct me if I'm being short-sighted. |
Because they vary in size. Some of my extenders are a lot smaller than the full featured extender. If a person doesn't need things like Xshift and nested macros, they may opt for a version that is smaller and leaves more room for upgrades, keymoves and macros.
I really think a hunt for additional extender RDF's would pose serious scope creep, and should be put off until your second release if you feel you have too.
_________________
Remember to provide feedback to let us know how the problem was solved and share your upgrades.
Tip: When creating an upgrade, always include ALL functions from the oem remote, even if you never plan on assigning them to a button. Complete function lists makes an upgrade more helpful to others.
Last edited by vickyg2003 on Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:14 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mr_d_p_gumby
Expert
Joined: 03 Aug 2003
Posts: 1370
Location: Newbury Park, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vickyg2003 wrote: | | I really and hunt for additional extender RDF's would pose serious scope creep, and should be put off until your second release if you feel you have too. |
The only comment I can add to this is that this is exactly what Nils has done in the past. He always went through the currently mature extenders and added their RDFs to the main distribution, possibly correcting and/or upgrading them in the process.
_________________
Mike England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mathdon
Expert
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
Posts: 4523
Location: Cambridge, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WagonMaster wrote: | | How do we really know that an RDF is for an extended remote? I'd already briefly looked into that and came to no conclusion yet. |
A very good question, one I've thought about for other reasons in the context of IR.exe. I came to the conclusion that it is not possible to tell for certain.
My understanding from the RDF Spec is that the [Extender] section is a predecessor of the [SpecialProtocols] section, and although its presence implies that the RDF is for an extended remote, no conclusion can be drawn from its absence.
The presence of a [SpecialProtocols] section does NOT imply that the RDF is for an extended remote, though possibly its absence means that it is for an unextended remote - or are there actually extenders that do not support Special Protocols? There are certain Special Protocols, like LDKP, that I believe can only occur with extenders, but others, like Pause, that can occur in any remote.
I can't think of anything else that is even helpful in deciding. Perhaps there should be some special entry for just this purpose, but that doesn't help with existing RDFs.
_______________
Graham |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vickyg2003
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 7073
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know how to determine an rdf is for an extender. Luckily IR usually selects the correct RDF based on the signature.
Wagonmaster, you need to add two more to your totals.
When I was naming some of my rdfs, the selection box in IR7 was half as wide as it is now, so I abreviated to EXT in order to get pertinent information to display in the screen.
_________________
Remember to provide feedback to let us know how the problem was solved and share your upgrades.
Tip: When creating an upgrade, always include ALL functions from the oem remote, even if you never plan on assigning them to a button. Complete function lists makes an upgrade more helpful to others.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ElizabethD
Advanced Member
Joined: 09 Feb 2004
Posts: 2348
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mr_d_p_gumby wrote: | | Mark Pierson wrote: | | I can't remember if there's anyone else to blame. |
Well Mark, if your memory is getting that bad, then this time Mikey can blame you!
There have been numerous others who've adapted John's original extender to other remotes. Offhand, I remember that Hal (mtakahar) did the orignal URC-6131 extender, and he seems to be AWOL of late. |
David Vasques wrote 8910 extender, hasn't been around for a long time
Others: Hal, yes, Mike adaptations to Atlas, Vicky, Unclemiltie
Could we just keep all the RDFs in one bucket?
Someone suggested RM or IR excluding extender RDFs based on ??? . I guess that might make sense if the disctinction is really clean. Once we got a wider box in IR, and a clear list in RM, selecting extended or unextended just doesn't seem to be such a problem. Let's say I change from 8910 to 8910ext, will I be able to easily select the ext file as easily as now?
_________________
Liz
Tweeking 8910, HTPro/9811, C7-7800, 6131o, 6131n, AtlasOCAP-1056B01, RCA-RCRP05B and enjoying the ride |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ElizabethD
Advanced Member
Joined: 09 Feb 2004
Posts: 2348
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mathdon wrote: | | The presence of a [SpecialProtocols] section does NOT imply that the RDF is for an extended remote, though possibly its absence means that it is for an unextended remote - or are there actually extenders that do not support Special Protocols? There are certain Special Protocols, like LDKP, that I believe can only occur with extenders, but others, like Pause, that can occur in any remote. |
I doubt there are extenders that do not support Special Protocol Keymoves.
There are few special protocols written specifically for unextended remotes. Nils at one point added ULKP entry into 8910 unextended, U meaning unextended. I did something similar for 7800/C7 (L/DKP+DSM)- if it's important I'll find the RDF (other computer is busy now), and there may well have been others.
_________________
Liz
Tweeking 8910, HTPro/9811, C7-7800, 6131o, 6131n, AtlasOCAP-1056B01, RCA-RCRP05B and enjoying the ride |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
File Section
Wiki
