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

Radix IoT Website Mango 3 Documentation Website Mango 4 Documentation Website

  • Before starting a backup procedure, device A shall read the Backup_Preparation_Time property, if present, from device
    B's Device object. If the property is not present in device B, the value shall be assumed to be 0.

    To do that :

    in class property indentifier:

        public static final PropertyIdentifier backupandrestorestate = new PropertyIdentifier(314);
        public static final PropertyIdentifier backuppreparationtime = new PropertyIdentifier(315);
        public static final PropertyIdentifier restorepreparationtime = new PropertyIdentifier(316);
    if (type == backupandrestorestate.intValue())
                return "Backup And Restore State";
            if (type == backuppreparationtime.intValue())
                return "Backup Prepartion Time";
            if (type == restorepreparationtime.intValue())
                return "Restore Preparation Time";

    in class object properties :

    //add by jose
            add(ObjectType.device, PropertyIdentifier.backupandrestorestate, UnsignedInteger.class, false, false, null);
            add(ObjectType.device, PropertyIdentifier.backuppreparationtime, UnsignedInteger.class, false, false, null);
            add(ObjectType.device, PropertyIdentifier.restorepreparationtime, UnsignedInteger.class, false, false, null);

    Say me if it's ok . thanks

  • That's a start, yes. I've checked in changes to more fully implement Add-135-2008n.

  • Thanks

    but strange that my property identifiers number are differents

  • Do you have the same addendum? I used this one: