I’m in it for self and community improvement, not easy and fast. Besides, if it 
were easy, it wouldn’t be as satisfying, or as much fun, would it? :)

Thanks

> On Jan 13, 2015, at 5:23 AM, Stefano Lenzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear  Josh and Philipp,
> 
> I agree with Philipp that from the time point of view it is easier to buy 
> CC2531EMK  ( http://www.ti.com/tool/cc2531emk 
> <http://www.ti.com/tool/cc2531emk> ) or CC2530-Eval-Kit ( 
> http://www.wvshare.com/product/CC2530-Eval-Kit.htm 
> <http://www.wvshare.com/product/CC2530-Eval-Kit.htm> ), but if you have time 
> then it will help you to learn a lot about ZB4O and moreover it will be very 
> helpfull to the ZB4O community 
> 
> So it is up to you :)
> 
> Ciao,
> Stefano
> 
> Il 13/01/2015 09:01, Philipp Buluschek ha scritto:
>> Hello Josh
>> 
>> Sorry if I sound discouraging, but wouldn't it be easier and faster for you 
>> to buy a TI ZigBee Stick for USD ~20.- instead of writing a complete ZIC 
>> including a profound refactoring of ZB4O? Coding and testing such a ZIC is 
>> wuite some work...
>> 
>> Regards Philipp
>> 
>> On 13.01.2015 03:15, Josh Fornwall wrote:
>>> Hello All,
>>> 
>>> I’ve started work on an XBee ZIC, as that’s the hardware I have, and 
>>> stumbling across various previous attempts, I don’t see that anyone has 
>>> made progress on this. I’ve read through some of the material in your wiki, 
>>> and spent about a week looking over your code. The general idea seems 
>>> relatively straight forward, starting wtih essentially the implementation 
>>> of the SimpleDriver interface. Using your TI drivers as a template, I’ve 
>>> made some decent progress. But I’m running into trouble with methods like 
>>> this;
>>> 
>>> public ZDO_NODE_DESC_RSP sendZDONodeDescriptionRequest(ZDO_NODE_DESC_REQ 
>>> request);
>>> 
>>> These methods are invariably tied to the ZTool framework/API, which is 
>>> similar to, but not equivalent to what’s needed to communicate with an 
>>> XBee. My thought would be to create some generic interfaces, defining the 
>>> underlying (ZDO/ZCL) packet fields that could be jointly implemented by the 
>>> various ZICs, making it easier to implement non-TI hardware. What are your 
>>> thoughts on this, and how can I help? Does this make sense, or is there 
>>> another approach we (I) can take?
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dev mailing list
>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>> http://zb4osgi.aaloa.org/mailman/listinfo/dev 
>>> <http://zb4osgi.aaloa.org/mailman/listinfo/dev>
>> 
>> -- 
>> ________________________________________
>> 
>>  Philipp Buluschek, Dr.-Ing.
>>  Adhoco AG
>>  Althardstr. 70
>>  CH-8105 Regensdorf
>> 
>>  Phone:  +41 52 264 5081
>>  Mobile: +41 79 800 8218
>> ________________________________________ 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dev mailing list
>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> http://zb4osgi.aaloa.org/mailman/listinfo/dev 
>> <http://zb4osgi.aaloa.org/mailman/listinfo/dev>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Stefano Lenzi
> OSGi Invited Researcher
> Tel: +39 050 621 2844
> Fax: +39 050 315 2811
> Skype: kismet-sl
> Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell’Informazione “A. Faedo”
> Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche
> Via Moruzzi, 1, 56124 - Pisa - Italy - Stanza C66 
> <stefano_lenzi.vcf>_______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://zb4osgi.aaloa.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://zb4osgi.aaloa.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

Reply via email to