On Sun, 2006-08-27 at 16:11 -0400, Frank Brickle wrote: > On Sun, 2006-08-27 at 20:38 +0100, Bob Cowdery wrote: > > > I can't see how you move that back to the UI > > without having duplicate data and a lot of issues. > > To expand on the last point just a little, the UI also has a much more > complex idea of what the VFO wants to be (VFO A+B, switching, RIT, XIT, > etc.) than any of the other functional nodes need to know. There's no > information there that needs to be spread outside the UI. It still all > funnels down into a single "tune-to" request to the kernel. > Agreed, but its all part and parcel of my application model and tied up with the application logic which is implemented in my state machine. Regardless of whether you consider it to be part of the UI I want the application to live it it's own node and the UI to be just the presentation layer and nothing more. In fact its more appropriate to drop the term UI or GUI and refer instead to the presentation and application layers. What I don't want is these layers to be forced into the same node or into some subnet which would have to include CAT and goodness knows what else. 73 de Bob
_______________________________________________ FlexRadio mailing list FlexRadio@flex-radio.biz http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archive Link: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ FlexRadio Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com
