David Gay wrote: > As the previous mails mentioned, our experience so far is that > "working properly" and "using JavaComm" have not been a good > combination. Fixing the issue in TOSComm is probably easier (at a > guess, from the discussion, I would guess there's a 64-bit-related bug > - the code is clearly working fine for a bunch of other people, who > probably are using 32-bit OSes).
well, I have used JavaComm for various purposes, such as reading GPS information through the NMEA-183 protocol, or control industrial scale automation systems controlling robots using the 3964r protocol. All this on various platoforms (Linux x86 and MacOS X on G4), and it all worked fine. Whereas now I get either segfaults, or if I don't get them, it still doesn't work. It's also probably safe to say that the penetration of JavaComm is wider than TOSComm, and therefore it's more thoroughly tested and verified for reliability. I would also argue that even though you might have had a bad experience with some JavaComm implementations, it might have been an overkill designing a new interface for this purpose. But anyway - as you guys know the TinyOS codebase a lot better - where would I replace TOSComm in the Java code with JavaComm? Should I re-implement the TOSSerial object to use JavaComm calls instead of the JNI ones? Or create another object implementing the SerialPort interface, and make sure that's used all over the code? Akos _______________________________________________ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@Millennium.Berkeley.EDU https://mail.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
