Hi Walter,
I'm afraid :-)) our private discussion hasn't come to an end yet.
But with my following comments I hope I can point out the logical content of the
cited statement about the "three argument form" of the diald manpage.
Ok, it's a hairsplitting, but I like it now :-)
> > I have read the manual page once more with a maximum of attention. Again I would
> > say that it tells us the fuzz parameter actually should *not* affect the initial
> > duration:
> >
> > "In the three argument form, the <initial-duration> parameter indicates the
> > minimum number of seconds diald will keep the line up once a call has been
> > initiated. After this timer expires diald will proceed as for the two
> > argument case using the <secondary-duration> parameter in place of the
> > <duration> parameter."
> >
> > So, if your test turns out the opposite, this part of the manpage definitely
> > *must* be wrong.
>
> No, just incomplete.
No, here we disagree.
*Please read the following paragraphs very carefully.*
The <initial-duration> parameter indicates *NOT* the minimum number of seconds
[...], if the <fuzz> parameter is applied to it.
In this case, and I of course believe your test results, the <initial-duration>
parameter indicates the ** *maximum* of seconds of this <initial-duration> **,
because the minimum number of seconds is ** <initial-duration> - <fuzz> **.
Mathematically expressed it reads
(<initial-duration> - <fuzz>) < (<first period real duration>) <
(<initial-duration>).
(Read the "<"-sign as "lower than or equal to", as I don't have the right one on
my keyboard.)
This points out *clearly* that the first sentence of the above cited extract of
the manpage is *not_incomplete* but *wrong*.
Again noted: My argumentation bases on *your* test result that the <fuzz>
parameter in fact applies to the <initial-duration> parameter.
This doesn't contradict my former arguments as they were based on
"[...] the <initial-duration> parameter indicates the minimum of seconds [..].",
because this obviously *implies* the <fuzz> not affecting the
<initial-duration>, so first of all I couldn't come to another conclusion before
you told me of your test result of an applying <fuzz> parameter.
BTW: The duration of a link uptime would then (<fuzz> not applying)
mathematically be expressed as following:
(<initial-duration>) < (<initial-duration> + n*<secondary-duration> - <fuzz>) <
infinite
where n = 1,2,.... and the "<"-signs read as "lower than" and "infinite" as we
don't know when the link becomes idle.
I hope my explanations are unequivocal and logically clear.
> It may be important to note that the two argument
> format is described right before.
Ok.
> What is meant is probably that the three
> argument form behaves like the two argument,
As there are several aspects of behaviour, I should strictly speaking not know,
what you mean here :-)
And in a strict sense here you imply an applying of the <fuzz> parameter on the
<initial-duration> parameter, but the context of that part of the manpage gives
no reason at all to presume this.
> only the first (initial)
> impulse length is used *once* (...after that timer expires...).
This aspect of behaviour is expressed explicitely indeed.
> The only question remaining is if the <fuzz> factor is applied to the
> inital impulse as well. That started this thread.
As I understood you, your test result is: it really applies.
> > Conclusion: this behavior could be better documented.
>
> Yes, but I'd say that diald is already very well documented.
I didn't say the opposite!
("[...], this part of the manpage definitely *must* be wrong")
^^^^^^^^^
I referred to the special behaviour of the three argument form of 'impulse'.
> What is missing are more (explained) examples and a FAQ preventing people
> extracting their answers from the man pages.
I'm sure, as a student of electrical engeneering you are familiar with
extracting answers of varying papers and others will do this as well.
BTW: Huge FAQ lists will never substitute papers with a context, but they may
prevent the authors from being bombed with the same question several times a
day.
> As we discovered, these are
> not always perfectly clear. Therefore, interprations may vary.
That's fate of human publishing :-) therefore such texts IMHO shouldn't be
interpreted because this may result in some irritations (as our dicussion :-))
> This confirms my request for more detailled [impulse] examples.
Of course I agree.
> Does this mean you agree that the fuzz factor is applied to both?
Yes, that's it what I assume. As I told you, I did never test it, but you did
with respect to your special problem (this subject).
> I feel kind of sorry that this thread may has come to and end... ;-)
How one can err :-))
> Many thanks, Thomas!
Thanks to you Walter, I liked it too!
Best regards,
Thomas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-diald" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
