hansolofal...@worldnet.att.net
"The Force will be with you always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
> -Original Message-
> From: Steinar Midtskogen [mailto:stei...@latinitas.org]
> Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 1:23 AM
> To: owfs-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re:
Paul Alfille writes:
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Steinar Midtskogen
> wrote:
>>
>> When the property is asked for with the full path of the location, a
>> successful read will confirm its location, so an explicit directory
>> scan adds nothing in that case, does it? So in that case it sho
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Steinar Midtskogen wrote:
> [Paul Alfille]
>
>> In 2.5 we assumed "uncached" referred only to the property value, not
>> the location.
>> In 2.6 and later, "uncached" refers to both location and property
>> value. This forces clearance of stale directories.
>>
>> I s
[Paul Alfille]
> In 2.5 we assumed "uncached" referred only to the property value, not
> the location.
> In 2.6 and later, "uncached" refers to both location and property
> value. This forces clearance of stale directories.
>
> I suppose we could change this behavior:
> uncached/device/property us
Ok, I've had a chance to look at your question a little more closely.
There is a change in behavior, and it was intentional. Let me explain:
When you ask for a value, it requires 2 things:
1. Find/confirm the device location.
2. Get the data from the device.
Both of these things are cached, the
Paul Alfille writes:
> I'll look into the behavior for the current version, this is a bug
> that may still persist (We're at 2.7p22 rather than 2.6p0).
Yes, it's in 2.7p22 as well.
I discovered the changed behaviour when I tried to move my snow depth
sensor to 2.7p22. I use CNTL on a DS2409 to
I'll look into the behavior for the current version, this is a bug
that may still persist (We're at 2.7p22 rather than 2.6p0).
The second part of your note is easier. The location of the "uncached"
in the path is immaterial. The whole path is treated as "uncached".
Paul Alfille
On Thu, Jul 2, 20
I've noticed a difference between version 2.5p1 and 2.6p0. When I do
several
owget -s 3000 /uncached/1F.FAC60200/main/26.7AAB4200/VAD
the behaviour is different. In 2.5 the hub is not accessed at all
(expect for the first time) which makes sense since I don't access
anything else not on
