[Coco] DriveWire survey

[CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts]

On 5/10/2014 11:36 PM, CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts wrote:
>
> I think we would all rather be using a network interface than the serial
> port we use now.
>
> There are two main parts needed.  One is the Ethernet (or WiFi, doesn't
> matter to me) hardware, the other is software that can do something with
> that hardware.
>
> We sort of have the software part depending on what the interface is.  The
> networking api in DriveWire is designed with the idea that someday the DW
> server/serial connection could be replaced by something like the Wiznet
> 5xxx series tcpip controllers (which would then connect to Ethernet or
> WiFi, etc).  So, if somebody can connect a wiznet or similar controller to
> the coco, making the existing dw software such as the nitros9 drivers, web
> server and telnet client should be fairly easy.
You'll have to pardon me for being new to CoCo, but I see two places 
where an "interface" would be useful.

1) the serial port on the Coco.
2) the expansion port on the Coco.

I'm suggesting a WiFi interface that can:

a) run standalone, connected only to the serial port (DriveWire-ish)
b) run plugged into the Coco or a MultiPack (and would also connect to 
the serial port)

The box would have a complete TCP/IP stack onboard, along with what is 
needed for Wifi (or Ethernet, if that's of interest)

The questions I have are:

Was the Coco serial port used for anything in the day?
On the expansion port, what types of interfaces would be candidates for 
Wifi capability (I assume there was a UART cart available, FDD 
controller, HDD?, anything else?)

I'm not suggesting the expansion port as a first action, but I'd want to 
create the serial port interface in such a way as to not preclude gluing 
the HW to the expansion port at some later point.  I have a 802.11g self 
contained Wifi stack dev board here, and microcontrollers are all over 
the place here, so the DriveWire serial interface is simple



>
> On the other hand, if its just a raw Ethernet interface then we also need
> to create a tcpip stack and client software that uses it for the coco.
> That's a considerable amount of work, though certainly possible.  It might
> be possible to use the DW network clients with a software IP stack too, so
> that could potentially save some work.
Well, such a device should potentially offer a "raw" mode, for those 
brave souls who want to roll their own SW, but my idea was to stuff a 
complete TCP/IP stack into the box.


>
> I guess a third option would be to use Ethernet as a direct replacement for
> the serial connection we use now.  That would mean a server running on a
> modern PC is still required.  Not ideal, but probably easier than anything
> else.  Potentially we could use such an arrangement as a crutch until a
> native network stack was created for the coco.
Well, I don't think I'd call it a crutch.  I'd call it a good first 
step.  I can easily ship some HW that could create a virtual bridge from 
serial to TCP/IP.  You'd just need to modify the DW server to accept a 
connection via TCP/IP, not serial.  Then, modify the codebase to handle 
multiple incoming TCP/IP connections.  Finally, separate the GUI from 
the server...



>
> I am up for doing whatever I can to help, but I'm useless with hardware and
> only marginally capable on the coco software side.

I'm happy to put together the HW pieces, and I have a bit of experience 
doing so.  I have no 6809/6309 experience, so no help there, but I'm the 
author of a few server-based apps (The reverse engineered version of 
QuantumLink, for one), so I can help on that end...

As noted previously, happy to help.

Jim Brain