On 7/5/07, Joseph E. Hoag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that communicating LLRP through XML is a really good idea in theory. > It makes debugging and testing a lot easier. However, unless you can make it > a standard that all LLRP-capable readers support, then it is not worth much. > Speaking as one who will participate in the writing of the LLRP client for > TagCentric, I would only implement "byte stream" LLRP, because I know that > *all* LLRP-capable readers support byte stream LLRP. >
But if you use your Java API will you really be binding the client to LLRP binary or your client API? > In my mind, XML-based LLRP messages would *only* be used for debugging and > testing. No one would use XML-based LLRP for their primary messaging > mechanism because it is not a standard. > In fact you can base on API on it though. We've done so for testing, but it may have wider applicability. > Maybe I'm missing the point. Are you talking about implementing some sort of > XML-based LLRP standard solely for use in debugging and testing? > No, LLRP-XML is intended to be an adjunct to whatever API you use on the client side. The binary protocol of course is used on the network. When clients program to your Java library are they binding to LLRP binary or your object API? Yet none of these object APIs are standard. To be useful LLRP-XML doesn't need to be an official standard any more than an API needs to be an official standard. One could envision a web-service based on LLRP.xsd but that isn't the point, at least not yet. -- John. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel
