[eagle] Re: YAHOO!!!! IT WORKS!!!!

Juan Rivera juan-rivera at sbcglobal.net
Mon Sep 17 17:24:52 PDT 2007


All,

 

In our case we were confused because the log showed packets coming and
going, at least I think it did.  If the application can tell that nothing is
getting acknowledged perhaps it could pop an alert box up.  That would have
done it for us in this particular instance.

 

Juan

 

  _____  

From: eagle-bounces at amsat.org [mailto:eagle-bounces at amsat.org] On Behalf Of
Jim Sanford
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 3:24 PM
To: Bdale Garbee
Cc: Robert McGwier; eagle at amsat.org
Subject: [eagle] Re: YAHOO!!!! IT WORKS!!!!

 

Bdale:
I don't disagree with anything you say.

I had in mind something along the lines of installation and/or configuration
instructions.  Based on Chuck's note, it appears that the user needs to
specify address and mode before delivery.

Thanks & 73,
Jim
wb4gcs at amsat.org


Bdale Garbee wrote: 

On Sun, 2007-09-16 at 20:27 -0400, Jim Sanford wrote:
  

Guys:
There's a lesson here:   DOCUMENTATION
    

 
The only additional documentation I can think of that might help in this
sort of case would be something like a CAN bus troubleshooting
flowchart.  Having something like that wouldn't help avoid this kind of
problem, but it might reduce the time to resolution.
 
It does sound like the software Juan is using could use better error
reporting in the case where there's apparently no module responding at
the address selected.
 
Pretty typical in projects like this for us to get a lot of mileage out
of software and process documentation that's just barely adequate to the
task and lacking in "frills" like good user interfaces and/or error
reporting.  That doesn't make it right, but I don't think there are any
magic fixes, either.
  
Bdale
 
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://amsat.org/mailman/private/eagle/attachments/20070917/0f813743/attachment.html


More information about the Eagle mailing list