Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:

>> [connectors]
> This seems to ba a fairly open issue, so we could probably match the
> cabling with other needs in the project. 

Exactly. There are some pseudo-standards, and they may become important
when you're thinking of integrating other vendors' products (like the PC
CAN interface I'm using has a DB9 connector). 

>> (Of course, that's not required by CAN. You can embed destination
>> addresses in the message identifier, and the stations can filter based
>> on the bits that encode the destination address. But I think the
>> message broadcast scheme is the original CAN concept, and the most
>> popular one among the higher- level protocols.)
> 
> This isn't realy a technical issue, but more a question of how you look
> at it, not ? 

It depends on what you mean by "technical issue" :)  That's where the
higher-level protocols that sit on top of CAN come into play. The different
encoding schemes have different characteristics. 

For example, if you have many devices on the bus that may send the same
error messages, a scheme that encodes the sender address in the message id
may be useful -- you can use the same error codes for all devices, and they
are distinguished by the encoded sender address. (Note that due to the bus
arbitration, you may not have two devices that may try to send the same
message id.)

Gerhard
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist