You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As a method to improve reliability of the channel, we could have a
repeat:
interval: 50mscount: 3
option on the provider side. Sane values could probably be between 10ms and 1s for interval, and 1 to 5 for count.
Mimicking the infrared remotes, some of which repeat single key presses within the protocol to increase reliability.
Care should be taken on the receiver side not to trigger repeated updates for the repeated packet so maybe a provider-side nonce which would be the same in the repeats could be employed for this purpose.
This would let us use a wider update_interval for the entire component, and could offer increased reliability in case of #114.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
As a method to improve reliability of the channel, we could have a
option on the provider side. Sane values could probably be between
10ms
and1s
for interval, and1
to5
for count.Mimicking the infrared remotes, some of which repeat single key presses within the protocol to increase reliability.
Care should be taken on the receiver side not to trigger repeated updates for the repeated packet so maybe a provider-side nonce which would be the same in the repeats could be employed for this purpose.
This would let us use a wider
update_interval
for the entire component, and could offer increased reliability in case of #114.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: