atom feed33 messages in net.java.dev.spots.devRe[2]: radio update
FromSent OnAttachments
Ron GoldmanMar 2, 2009 5:06 pm 
Eric ArseneauMar 2, 2009 6:09 pm 
Pete St. PierreMar 2, 2009 6:35 pm 
Eric ArseneauMar 2, 2009 8:00 pm 
John DanielsMar 2, 2009 11:43 pm 
Pete St. PierreMar 3, 2009 8:41 am 
Ron GoldmanMar 4, 2009 3:14 am 
John DanielsMar 4, 2009 7:12 am 
Markus BestehornMar 4, 2009 7:57 am 
Randy SmithMar 4, 2009 8:20 am 
John DanielsMar 4, 2009 8:51 am 
Arshan PoursohiMar 4, 2009 8:51 am 
Randy SmithMar 4, 2009 8:51 am 
John DanielsMar 4, 2009 9:16 am 
John DanielsMar 4, 2009 9:24 am 
Eric ArseneauMar 4, 2009 9:28 am 
Eric ArseneauMar 4, 2009 9:31 am 
Markus BestehornMar 4, 2009 10:03 am 
Robert TaylorMar 4, 2009 10:50 am 
John DanielsMar 4, 2009 11:24 am 
Ron GoldmanMar 4, 2009 11:27 am 
John DanielsMar 4, 2009 11:30 am 
John DanielsMar 4, 2009 11:37 am 
Eric ArseneauMar 4, 2009 11:38 am 
Eric ArseneauMar 4, 2009 11:39 am 
Dave ClealMar 4, 2009 12:22 pm 
Eric ArseneauMar 4, 2009 12:43 pm 
Randy SmithMar 4, 2009 3:43 pm 
John DanielsMar 4, 2009 10:54 pm 
John DanielsMar 5, 2009 8:16 am 
Markus BestehornMar 5, 2009 10:43 am 
Markus BestehornMar 6, 2009 9:19 am.jpg
Markus BestehornMar 11, 2009 6:26 am 
Subject:Re[2]: radio update
From:John Daniels (jd@syntropy.co.uk)
Date:Mar 4, 2009 11:24:09 am
List:net.java.dev.spots.dev

Hi Markus,

1. Since you want to develop/test something for wireless networks, you cannot expect 100% equality of sending ranges from one transmission to the other. In my opinion this is ok.

I disagree. I want to be able to set up a test rig so that when I run a test *exactly* the same set of packets get sent each time, or as close as I can get bearing in mind the randomness of the ARM9 cache. Without near 100% repeatability I can't create proper regression tests.

Clearly, though, if you want to test under realistic conditions you use normal radio transmission, with all its vagaries. But that's no good in a regression test environment.

--John