Please Note This forum exists for community support for the Mango product family and the Radix IoT Platform. Although Radix IoT employees participate in this forum from time to time, there is no guarantee of a response to anything posted here, nor can Radix IoT, LLC guarantee the accuracy of any information expressed or conveyed. Specific project questions from customers with active support contracts are asked to send requests to support@radixiot.com.

@mlohbihler said: Hi Fred, That's a good question. I don't believe there are any specified requirements in this regard. But when we look at the WhoHas service, there is a device id range (meaning your device id should be consistent), and there is a Choice object which can be either object identifier or name. So, theoretically either should do, but for maximum compatibility they should probably both remain the same for your object. I guess what I really need to do (if it's not cost prohibitive) is get a hold of some of the BACnet monitoring tools and see how folks monitor and administer BACnet devices. I would guess the configuration of a hard wire BACnet device rarely changes and one can form dependencies on the object ids. If I need to maintain the mapping between my analog sensors and an arbitrary object instance id, I can do that - I just don't know if it's necessary. Regards, Fred

Richard, I'm in the same boat you are. I need to expose multiple devices from a single network address. Did you find a good way to handle this? Regards, Fred

Hi M@, That sounds fantastic :D Thank you very much.

Thanks for reporting this. There was a problem in the Who-Has deserialization. A fix has been checked into the CVS repo. Note that the constructor API has changed slightly for this class as well.

No, not that i know of.

I have posted my capture of WinPcap on the following link : http://www.megaupload.com/?d=AKO2T4L1 . I have tried to reduce the maxReadMultipleReferencesNonsegmented this afternoon and with the value 19 rather than 20, I have no problem ! Thanks for all.

Hi Dave, Yes, that certainly was a bug. I've applied your fixes with a small difference. Your code locates all instances where the given object matches the current object in the list, and shifts all remaining objects on the right one slot to the left to affect the remove. However, the implementation of the remove(int indexBase1) sets the value at the index to null and then trims nulls from the end of the list. The remove implementation that i've applied will only remove the first occurrence of a matching object (from left to right), and will remove it by setting it to null (via a call to the remove(int) method, so trimming of nulls on the right will also occur). This is only for consistency sake. I've also implemented your original code, but renamed it removeAll(E). The code changes have been checked into the CVS repo. Let me know if this doesn't work for your purposes and we'll figure something out.

:oops: The examples are quite clearly located in the src\com\serotonin\bacnet4j\test directory! How silly do I feel!

Besides the example code, no. Still waiting on our kind and generous user base to contribute some. :wink:

DiscoveryTest running in another machine detects the LoopDevice

Hi, The source code in CVS currently represents a later version than what is in the archive. To use test code from CVS you need to get the implementation code from CVS and build it into a jar file yourself. The build scripts are in CVS too.

Hi, Typically on startup of a device it sends out an IAm message, which announces its presence to all other existing devices. It optionally may then send a WhoIs request to discover all other existing devices (if it happens to care). I recommend you look further into these two messages for more information.

is it really necessary to set localDevice in the constructor of com.serotonin.bacnet4j.obj.BAcnetObject, doing this in localDevce.add() should be the better way? Check out LocalDevice. It is an example of where a BACnetObject is created without being added to the localDevice instance. It's debatable whether it needs to know the localDevice instance i suppose, but it is possible to send a message to "yourself", so i'd prefer to leave it the way it is. Create wrappers for the base Objects (BAchnetObject) that implement the required and optional properties? This was considered at the time of original development. It's a reasonable suggestion, but considering how BACnet attempts to normalize all object properties, how much would this really help? (Of course, at the same time BACnet goes to the trouble to define in detail all object properties, so i suppose the argument could go either way.) And last but noit least create a library of proxies for real Devices that encapsulates the readProperty process and act as "normal" java classes with properties? Kind of like EJBs? I suppose, but it sounds like 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

Hi, You can download the jar of compiled classes to save yourself from having to compile the sources if you want. Otherwise, compilation is really just a matter of running javac (making sure seroUtils.jar is in your classpath). If you don't understand this it's because you are new to Java. Once you understand Java compilation, building BACnet4J will be trivial. You might also look into ANT too.