[PD] Pduino: Call for testing

[Roman Haefeli]

On Sat, 2012-03-03 at 22:27 -0800, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

> I would prefer that you use a different name unless you are interested
> in providing strict compatibility with the current Pduino.

Yes, actually I'm interested.

>   Things like using namespace prefixes are one example of
> compatibility that it sounds like you are not interested in, for
> example. 

There is a conflict: Either it works only in Pd-extended setups, or you
loose the advantage of using namespace prefixes. I solved that conflict
by not using [makesymbol] at all.

Some words about that particular case:
Actually [zexy/makesymbol] wasn't ever used in [arduino], only in
arduino-help.pd . There it's used to display the Firmware version in a
GOP cnv object -> [zexy/makesymbol firmata_%s.%s]. This can be safely
replaced nowadays by [symbol firmata_$1.$2(. However, I didn't even use
that, because I thought it would be useful to display the whole Firmata
specification there, not only the protocol version. It now displays
something like:

StandardFirmata 2 3

and it does so with only using vanilla classes. Let me point that
[arduino] itself is not all affected by this.

> Pduino deliberately uses namespace prefixes because that's currently
> the only way to guarantee the correct object is being loaded. 

Agreed.

>  Using [declare -lib zexy]  [makesymbol] does not currently guarantee
> that (tho it should).

Yeah, I also agree that it should.

Please, tell me about your further constraints, if there are any, and
I'll see how I can comply with them.

Roman





> On Mar 3, 2012, at 6:47 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> 
> > Hi Hans
> > 
> > On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 08:55 -0800, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> >> I'm happy to see you working on this.  Since you are making a new
> >> version, perhaps it makes sense to change the names.  Like maybe it
> >> makes sense to change the object from [arduino] to [firmata]?  That's
> >> something I thought about doing in the past.  This would also make it
> >> easier for testers going forward because they could keep the old
> >> Pduino installed and also use your new library.  I suppose then the
> >> library would be called something besides Pduino too.
> >> 
> >> But if you want to keep those names, that's fine by me.
> > 
> > Actually, I prefer not to host a separate version/fork. I think the
> > design of the protocol and its implementation in [arduino] is solid and
> > I haven't messed at all with it. Our efforts for [arduino] were mainly
> > focused on smallish issues with usability and portability. Our plans are
> > to eventually push it into Debian as pd-arduino. For that goal, some
> > changes like getting rid of name-spaced objects (for instance:
> > [zexy/makesymbol], doesn't work in Debian with pd-zexy) and some other
> > stuff were necessary. Plus, it got a bug fixed Ingo discovered a while
> > ago. Still, the overall changes to [arduino] itself are rather smallish
> > and I wouldn't expect any severe bugs. Also, I think we tested it quite
> > well. 
> > 
> > The main effort, however, went into documentation and [arduino-gui] and
> > to figure out the tiny details and differences between the several
> > Firmata versions around in order to make the help-patch consistent as
> > documentation and [arduino-gui] consistent in its behaviour.  I consider
> > the updated help-patch a significant improvement (in that it covers all
> > features of the firmware, is clear in which pin supports which mode,
> > explains the differences in different firmware versions) and I wouldn't
> > see a reason to keep to old one living. 
> > 
> > Personally, I'd much prefer not to host a separate fork and I am all for
> > joining forces, not separating them. With your consent, I'd like to push
> > the new version to the svn repository. We could wait to do so, until we
> > got some positive reports from a few people, of course. There is really
> > no hurry.  Also, I'd take responsibility for any issues and bugs related
> > to Pduino (if that is what you want; I don't plan any 'hostile
> > take-over'). 
> > 
> > Finally, if we eventually agree on merging our git Pduino with the
> > official pd-svn/externals/hardware/arduino, I'd like to bump the Pduino
> > version to the Firmata version. As I understand, [arduino] is a plain
> > implementation of the Firmata protocol, not less, not more. I think it
> > would make sense to reflect the version of the protocol it implements in
> > its own version. We could still add a bug-fix number, so changes to
> > [arduino] without switching the prococol version could be reflected.
> > Something like 
> > 
> > 2.3.1
> > | | |
> > | | Pduino bugfix version
> > | protocol minor version
> > protocol major version
> > 
> > What do you think?
> > 
> > Roman
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> "[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from scarcity."        -John Gilmore
> 
>