JP1 Remotes Forum Index JP1 Remotes


FAQFAQ SearchSearch 7 days of topics7 Days MemberlistMemberlist UsergroupsUsergroups RegisterRegister
ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

'Protocols' Section in Extender RDFs

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    JP1 Remotes Forum Index -> JP1 - Software
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
WagonMaster



Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 360

                    
PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 2:30 pm    Post subject: 'Protocols' Section in Extender RDFs Reply with quote

I'm in the process of automating the checking of the "[Protocols]" section in the RDFs against the "master" output from Mike England and a couple of questions have come up.

First, is it safe to assume that the "[Protocols]" section of an extended RDF should always match the same section from the un-extended RDF? Or are there some special cases where the extended RDF is different?

I ask because I'm toying with the idea of trying to automate that check. It's theoretically more practical now that I've guaranteed that the "[Extender]" section and (more importantly) the brand-new "OEMSignature=" line (as discussed here) is present in all pertinent RDFs. I don't know if I'll actually automate the check, but I need to make sure that I'm not making a bad assumption before I even consider trying.

Second, this 1st question brings up a broader design question. Does it make sense to replicate the "[Protocols]" section from the unextended RDF in all of the extended RDFs or would it be more logical (albeit at the expense of the work needed to change the RDF-reading software/applications) to remove the "[Protocols]" section from the extended RDF and expect the "OEMSignature=" line to be used to locate the "[Protocols]" section (i.e. in the unextended RDF). In fact, this could probably apply to other sections, like the "[SetupCodes]", "[DigitMaps]", and "[ButtonMaps]" sections. I realize this is not a short-term sort of idea, but it might be a wise thing to consider in the longer term. In fact, a sort of "#include <filename>" capability (which is a related but different idea) has long been in my mind. Given the commonality in a lot of RDFs, this would be a nice feature, helping to eliminate errors. I don't know if either of those ideas are worth pursuing, but they're worth considering and discussing, IMHO.

Bill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ElizabethD
Advanced Member


Joined: 09 Feb 2004
Posts: 2348

                    
PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:19 pm    Post subject: Re: 'Protocols' Section in Extender RDFs Reply with quote

WagonMaster wrote:
First, is it safe to assume that the "[Protocols]" section of an extended RDF should always match the same section from the un-extended RDF? Or are there some special cases where the extended RDF is different?

At this point, I can only comment on this one
unextended 8910 fmily CPT0CPT0 (URC-8910(Old)_9910(Old)_8910(New)_9910(New)_HTPro).rdf
[SpecialProtocols]
UDSM=01FC
ULDKP=01F9
Multiplex=01FE
Pause=01FB
You will not see those with "U" in name because it's specific for unextended remote. On the other hand pid look the same.

and this C7L0C7L0 (URC-7800_6800 Cinema).rdf
[SpecialProtocols]
UDSM=01FC
Multiplex=01FE
"U" version here as well.

There might be others of course.
_________________
Liz
Tweeking 8910, HTPro/9811, C7-7800, 6131o, 6131n, AtlasOCAP-1056B01, RCA-RCRP05B and enjoying the ride Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WagonMaster



Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 360

                    
PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the input, Liz.

Actually, I have no problem with the "[SpecialProcotols]" section being different between extended and unextended RDFs. It's specifically the "[Protocols]" section (with all the raw PIDs) that I'm concerned with here. I'd assume they should always be the same, but I've made bad assumptions before. Surprised Smile

Bill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
unclemiltie
Expert


Joined: 21 Jan 2004
Posts: 1795
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

                    
PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bill

Yes, the protocols digit maps and the setup code section of the RDF will be identical between the unextended and extended remotes. These are lists of things that are in the ROMs and thus are not changed by the extender writers. (the only exception that I know of was the extender that Vicky was working on for the Comcast "gray button" JP1.2 remote, but I'm not sure that one ever got a whole lot of play since it was pretty complicated to activate)


As for your other question, there are lots of things that rely on a full RDF for every remote. I know that any breaking of the RDF's into pieces for extenders would cause issues for ExtInstall (although not major surgery)

But the idea of an unextended remote RDF that is "referenced" for all common stuff is an interesting idea. Would certainly make the maintenance of the RDF's easier. But someone's gonna have to go out and touch Extinstall to make it work (with both formats by the way)
_________________
this JP1 stuff is a sickness!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WagonMaster



Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 360

                    
PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

unclemiltie wrote:
Yes, the protocols digit maps and the setup code section of the RDF will be identical between the unextended and extended remotes. These are lists of things that are in the ROMs and thus are not changed by the extender writers.

OK, excellent. Thanks for the confirmation, UM. Now I can proceed with confidence.

unclemiltie wrote:
(the only exception that I know of was the extender that Vicky was working on for the Comcast "gray button" JP1.2 remote

She actually emailed me about a Comcast remote (1067 Extender) that may be the same one you're referring to. Based on what she said and what you're saying, I think it's safe for me to ignore that one exception for the moment, but I'm grateful to you both for bringing it to my attention.

unclemiltie wrote:
As for your other question, there are lots of things that rely on a full RDF for every remote. I know that any breaking of the RDF's into pieces for extenders would cause issues for ExtInstall (although not major surgery)

Good to know. I know too little about extenders and virtually nothing about 'Extinstall'.

unclemiltie wrote:
But the idea of an unextended remote RDF that is "referenced" for all common stuff is an interesting idea.

That's my line of thinking. Nothing would change in the short term, but I like the idea that the RDFs are getting the groundwork now for possible extra flexibility later.

Thanks for the input!

Bill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic       JP1 Remotes Forum Index -> JP1 - Software All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
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
Top 7 Advantages of Playing Online Slots The Evolution of Remote Control