 |
JP1 Remotes
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
WagonMaster
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 361
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| vickyg2003 wrote: | | Wagonmaster, you need to add two more to your totals, because 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. |
Thanks for the warning. Actually, it's just +1 because in one case you used "Ext" in the RDF name but "Extender" in the "Name=" line within, so my check picked up that case. It's the one where you use "Ext" in the filename and the "Name=" line that my check didn't find.
As I was re-checking the numbers with some quick 'n' dirty command-line work, I noticed that there are 57 RDFs with "ext" on the "Name=" line but only 54 RDFs with "ext" in the filename. Interesting.... That suggests that 3 RDFs are really extended RDFs but are not making that clear in the RDF filename. A little further checking shows that we have these 3 RDFs causing the discrepancy:
- 6_80_2x2 (URC-881x_801x_601x x2 2k).rdf
- 6_80_2x3 (URC-881x_801x_601x x3 2K).rdf
- 6_80_8x3 (URC-881x_801x_601x x3 8K$1815).rdf
It seems to me that those RDFs should have something more than just "x2" and "x3" to indicate that they're extended RDFs. Anybody know which extender author "owns" those RDFs?
Thinking ahead to a time where it may be important to distinguish extended from unextended RDFs, maybe (in the absence of a proper RDF entry) we should have a rule that the extended RDFs must have (as a minimum) "extend" (or even just "ext") in the filename and on the "Name=" line. That's a non-invasive requirement since only 6 RDFs (or only the 3 shown above if we choose "ext") are currently affected. Any objections to making that naming convention a standard?
Bill
Last edited by WagonMaster on Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
WagonMaster
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 361
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ElizabethD wrote: | | Someone suggested RM or IR excluding extender RDFs based on ??? . |
That was me.  And "???" was a check-able menu item (see "Advanced", "Suppress Messages" in 'IR.exe' for an example).
| ElizabethD wrote: | | I guess that might make sense if the disctinction is really clean. |
There are several ways to make that distinction clean:- Add a new entry to the RDF
- Insist that an "[Extender]" section (possibly even an empty one) be in all extended RDFs
- Use a standard naming convention in the RDF filename and/or the "Name=" line within the RDF and strictly enforce it
| ElizabethD wrote: | | Could we just keep all the RDFs in one bucket? |
| ElizabethD wrote: | | 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? |
Be sure to distinguish distribution (my issue, as RDF maintainer) and installation (your issue, as a user). This discussion is about distribution, not installation. If you install both aggregated RDF zip files (unextended and extended) into the same directory (which, of course, you should), the operation of the utilities won't change a bit.
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vickyg2003
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 7073
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Code: | 6_80_2x2 (URC-881x_801x_601x x2 2k).rdf
6_80_2x3 (URC-881x_801x_601x x3 2K).rdf
6_80_8x3 (URC-881x_801x_601x x3 8K$1815).rdf |
Again these rdfs were shortened because the 2k, and 8k were important distinctions, but the RDF window was too small to show the words.
It was only widened in one of the last IR7 releases, while those remotes were extended before ir7 was started.
_________________
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 |
|
|
WagonMaster
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 361
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vickyg2003 wrote: | | Again these rdfs were shortened because the 2k, and 8k were important distinctions, but the RDF window was too small to show the words. |
So are those your RDFs? If so, in the interest of consistency (and possible autodetection of extended RDFs) would you object to expanding the names to "ext2{3}" or "extend2{3}"?
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vickyg2003
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 7073
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No these are Matt's extenders. I just use them, and am well aware that they just barely fit into the IR window when I first started to use them. I prefer to have the word Extender 2 and Extender 3 spelled out totally now that the window is wide enough to have see the whole name. I'm SURE that the owner only used the x because of old IR contstraints.
On mine, 10820_8820_6820, Atlas 1025, URC-7800, and Comcast 1067A jp1.2, feel free to spell out the whole word Extender. I'll make sure to update the documentation and names to spell out the full extende when I update my RDF with the new RDFs.
_________________
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 |
|
|
WagonMaster
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 361
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vickyg2003 wrote: | | No these are Matt's extenders. |
I don't know any users named Matt on this forum. Is this someone I could contact?
| vickyg2003 wrote: | | On mine, 10820_8820_6820, Atlas 1025, URC-7800, and Comcast 1067A jp1.2, feel free to spell out the whole word Extender. |
I'd like to do so (and will), but I'd also like to first form some sort of consensus on a filename standard for extender RDFs, if there is in fact even to be such a thing. Personally, I also like "Extender" but could settle for a sub-string of that.
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mr_d_p_gumby
Expert
Joined: 03 Aug 2003
Posts: 1370
Location: Newbury Park, CA
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| WagonMaster wrote: | There are several ways to make that distinction clean:- Add a new entry to the RDF
- Insist that an "[Extender]" section (possibly even an empty one) be in all extended RDFs
- Use a standard naming convention in the RDF filename and/or the "Name=" line within the RDF and strictly enforce it
|
I see no harm in having there be an [Extender] section entry even if the section is empty. I created that section for the ECC spreadsheet, but it was always intended to be a section where extender properties could reside. While it may not be useful to existing programs, an entry indicating the unextended remote signature would help in doing automated updates to the RDF files.
The bigger question about this and your 3rd option is how exactly we would "strictly enforce" it. How would a program or person know for certain that the rule had been broken?
It looks like you've run across most of the variations in filenames for extenders that I can recall being in current use. If they contain "extender", "ext", ext#", or "x#" (where # signifies one or more digits) as distinct "words", I think you can assume they are for an extender. As Vicky surmises, most of these shortened names were due to the small display area in IR at the time. I have no problem with modifying them to all say "extender" at this point. At a minimum, there is no reason to not spell out "extender" in the [General] section Name entry.
_________________
Mike England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ElizabethD
Advanced Member
Joined: 09 Feb 2004
Posts: 2348
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Someone mentioned earlier that only IR and RM use RDFs.
ECC (Extender code calculator) does too. It currently doesn't take too well to a remote such as Comcast1067Bx3, but that's OT here.
So while most recent changes in IR almost eliminate the need for ECC, we're not yet there.
_________________
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: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| WagonMaster wrote: | | Be sure to distinguish distribution (my issue, as RDF maintainer) and installation (your issue, as a user). This discussion is about distribution, not installation. |
Got it.
I've been only spot-reading so I guess I missed that important distinction 
_________________
Liz
Tweeking 8910, HTPro/9811, C7-7800, 6131o, 6131n, AtlasOCAP-1056B01, RCA-RCRP05B and enjoying the ride |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WagonMaster
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 361
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mr_d_p_gumby wrote: | | WagonMaster wrote: | There are several ways to make that distinction clean:- Add a new entry to the RDF
- Insist that an "[Extender]" section (possibly even an empty one) be in all extended RDFs
- Use a standard naming convention in the RDF filename and/or the "Name=" line within the RDF and strictly enforce it
|
I see no harm in having there be an [Extender] section entry even if the section is empty. |
OK, that's good. Because, personally, of the 3 methods I mentioned, that's the one I like the best. It has the dual benefit of being the least intrusive and the most detectable and most enforceable, in an automated, unambiguous way.
| mr_d_p_gumby wrote: | | I created that section for the ECC spreadsheet, but it was always intended to be a section where extender properties could reside. While it may not be useful to existing programs, an entry indicating the unextended remote signature would help in doing automated updates to the RDF files. |
I really like that idea. Could we agree on a format for a new line for the RDF to do exactly that, something like "UnextendedSignature=30853085"? I think that could be very useful going forward.
| mr_d_p_gumby wrote: | | The bigger question about this and your 3rd option is how exactly we would "strictly enforce" it. How would a program or person know for certain that the rule had been broken? |
This is moot if we go with the 2nd option, but my thinking was that it's up to the RDF maintainer, aided by any tools ("tool" being too strong a word in most cases -- a mere command in a Unix shell would do in most cases) to detect any badly-named RDF files or RDF files with a bad "Name=" entry. Nothing goes into the aggregate RDF file unless it meets the rules. And, if we adopt the 2nd idea above, especially coupled with your idea of making a line with the unextended signature, it makes automated cross-checking that much easier and more bullet-proof.
| mr_d_p_gumby wrote: | | It looks like you've run across most of the variations in filenames for extenders that I can recall being in current use. If they contain "extender", "ext", ext#", or "x#" (where # signifies one or more digits) as distinct "words", I think you can assume they are for an extender. As Vicky surmises, most of these shortened names were due to the small display area in IR at the time. I have no problem with modifying them to all say "extender" at this point. At a minimum, there is no reason to not spell out "extender" in the [General] section Name entry. |
OK, that sounds good to me. Barring any strong reasons against it, my plan will be to start using "extender" in both the RDF filename and in the "Name=" section.
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WagonMaster
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 361
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ElizabethD wrote: | Someone mentioned earlier that only IR and RM use RDFs.
ECC (Extender code calculator) does too. |
Thanks for the info, Liz -- good to know. I'd asked about ECC in another thread, since I had no recollection of what it was (or even what it stood for) or who wrote/maintains it, but I got no response.
| ElizabethD wrote: | | I've been only spot-reading so I guess I missed that important distinction |
Not a problem. That's what I'm here for.
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Pierson
Expert
Joined: 03 Aug 2003
Posts: 3017
Location: Connecticut, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| WagonMaster wrote: | | Could we agree on a format for a new line for the RDF to do exactly that, something like "UnextendedSignature=30853085"? |
I would suggest "OEMSignature=".
_________________
Mark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WagonMaster
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 361
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Pierson wrote: | | I would suggest "OEMSignature=". |
I like it.
Bill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
damir
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Posts: 102
Location: Croatia
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Pierson wrote: | John Fine started all this extender trouble! 
I can't remember if there's anyone else to blame.  |
| mr_d_p_gumby wrote: | | 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. |
| vickyg2003 wrote: | | Oh yes, John Fine definately started all of this madness. |
Oh how many newcomers in this thread
The first extender was written by Nicola Salmoria. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Capn Trips
Expert
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 3990
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've created a poll here to help WagonMaster gauge what the feeling is on ONE vs. TWO RDF ZIP files for the distribution.
_________________
Beginners - Read this thread first
READ BEFORE POSTING or your post will be DELETED!
Remotes: OFA XSight Touch, AR XSight Touch
TVs: LG 65" Smart LED TV; Samsung QN850BF Series - 8K UHD Neo QLED LCD TV
RCVR: Onkyo TX-SR875; Integra DTR 40.3
DVD/VCR: Pioneer DV-400VK (multi-region DVD), Sony BDP-S350 (Blu-ray), Toshiba HD-A3 (HD-DVD), Panasonic AG-W1 (Multi-system VCR);
Laserdisc: Pioneer CLD-D704.
Amazon Firestick
tape deck: Pioneer CT 1380WR (double cassette deck)
(But I still have to get up for my beer) |
|
| 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
