This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://firstname.lastname@example.org/.Harald Welte laforge at gnumonks.org
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 07:02:21PM +0100, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: > >maybe not the same as the infamous AT command interface > > Why is AT bad? what other protocol do you propose? I've you've ever tried to write any fully-fledged AT command parser (like the various incarnations of Openmoko gsmd/libgsm, fso gsmd, ofono, etc.) then you know why. It's nice for human beings, but it's horribly overloaded for any machine based parsing, especially if you only have one channels and need to deal with unsolicited results overlapping with synchronous request/response type commands at the same time. In any interface where you have asynchronous signalling, each command should be tagged with an identifier, which is contained in the corresponding response. This is done e.g. very nicely in IMAP and you can have as many outstanding/executing commands in parallel as you want, without any difficulty parsing the responses whatsoever. Regards, Harald -- - Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)