[Tinyos-devel] [Tinyos Core WG] TEP105: LowPowerListening DutyCycles

[Andreas Koepke]

Hmm -- it does contain more than necessary. The parameters are protocol 
specific, and I doubt that an app-Writer wants to deal with them.

Stephen Dawson-Haggerty:
> It seems like this is very similar to what the PacketLink interface is
> for; changing its semantics to return FAIL if a send wasn't acked
> might be a reasonable approach.
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Andreas Koepke
> <koepke at tkn.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> Should we go ahead and define such an interface?
>>
>> Philip Levis:
>>> On May 19, 2008, at 3:17 AM, Vlado Handziski wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem here is that the AM abstraction has traditionally been
>>>> understood as a "best-effort" or unreliable single-hop service. Thats
>>>> why the semantics of the result values are like they are. If we want
>>>> to push a traditional LL/MAC stack organization below AM, these
>>>> assumptions would need to be revisited, but this is the source of some
>>>> of the confusion about the LPL control also.
>>> That's right; if one wanted different sendDone semantics (e.g., SUCCESS
>>> on ack), one could write a ReliableAMSend interface whose implementation
>>> calls enableAck on the send downcall, and checks for wasAcked on the
>>> event upcall, passing FAIL on the sendDone if it wasn't acked.
>>>
>>> Phil
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tinyos-devel mailing list
>> Tinyos-devel at millennium.berkeley.edu
>> https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-devel
>>