On 24.08.2010 21:09, Udo Richter wrote:
> Am 24.08.2010 07:57, schrieb Rainer Blickle:
>> in the method cDevice::GetDevice the device with the least impact is
>> searched (the block with "imp <<= x; imp |= "). For calculating the
>> impact (higher value = bigger impact) some "facts" are used. The
Hi Lars,
> a third one (just comes to my mind, not deeply thought about):
>
> Write a device-plugin which provides a new source. Then you will have your
> own channels. In each channel entry you can configure which "real" channels
> are behind this and the plugin will attach a receiver to the ne
Hi,
Am 25.08.2010 08:52, schrieb Rainer Blickle:
This impact algorithm has evolved over time and is a very fragile thing.
Looks like only people have very deep insight in this algorithm should
change it.
For alternate channel, wouldn't it be better to try all possible
channels one after the o
> This impact algorithm has evolved over time and is a very fragile thing.
Looks like only people have very deep insight in this algorithm should
change it.
> For alternate channel, wouldn't it be better to try all possible
> channels one after the other until one succeeds? I would not expect
> Ge
Am 24.08.2010 07:57, schrieb Rainer Blickle:
> in the method cDevice::GetDevice the device with the least impact is
> searched (the block with "imp <<= x; imp |= "). For calculating the
> impact (higher value = bigger impact) some "facts" are used. The most
> prio fact is "prefer the primary devic
Good Morning,
>From what I recall of discussions held on this list the reasons are based on,
>in no particular order :),
First
- initial basic common sense
then an iterative process involving
- satisfaction of common corner use cases
- satisfaction of problem use cases
- keeping most people h
