[Coco] IP packets on my coco

Mon Jun 6 19:38:37 EDT 2016

Aaron,

I haven't written the apps but the demos will provide enough information to do so.

It is like an API. Follow the rules and it will work.

For a basic a example to create / send an email is about 5 single commands..been awhile, this was so easy....first one I did. All high level DW calls. I would think major apps would prefer to do it this way and the low level firmware does the rest.

Same with theMP3/sound, incorporate this approach into games and then the hardware is really insignificant.

I do know people like to do it their way as well and that is good to.

Some of the other functions were not simple and a head buried in a RFC is not a lot of fun.

Still lots to do on my end as well. Firmware, firmware, firmware...... 

Mark Marlette
http://www.cloud9tech.com
mark at cloud9tech.com
mark at gamecamaddict.com

----- Original Message -----
From: Aaron Wolfe <aawolfe at gmail.com>
To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Coco] IP packets on my coco

Mark,

This also sounds awesome.

For the Fuzix stuff Brett is doing (or really any project that wants to do
IP itself), all you want is to send/receive ethernet frames as efficiently
as possible.  You really don't care about any IP stuff happening in the
controller.  But, for easy to use DECB networking you probably want *all*
the IP stuff happening in the controller.. and then you have the projects
that use DW+NitrOS9 today, which include some really impressive work.
Ideally that software could work with any new network option, which I think
means OS9 drivers that talk to the wiznet controller?  Never sorted that
out exactly.

Anyway.. if I can see three different places where people might want access
to the network stuff, experience tells me there are some more I don't know
about at all.

Can one platform or standard allow everybody to play at the level they want
to play? If not, what compromises are better than others?  I was never sure
about where to draw the lines for interfaces.  Its hard to keep a sense of
scale when you're interfacing between decades.  One thing I'm sure of is
that the work I personally did on DriveWire has some problems, in fact that
might be something that all interested parties can agree on :)  I'm sure
you've had to sort those out for the Cloud 9 product, and they have been a
problem for other projects.  It would be good to at least have a new spec
for how to do things after that has been fixed.

Sorry Brett, I swear I started off thinking about your project but the
above happened.

-Aaron

On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Mark Marlette <mmarlette at frontiernet.net>
wrote:
>
> Aaron,
>
>
> All of the development I am currently doing is based upon using Drivewire
commands to/from the host. The host can be a PC(the original DriveWire
sense), an Atmel AVR(as in my case) or a DEx(as in Gary's case). Using
existing commands, if present, if not creating my own.
>
> It is then the responsibility of the host to perform the low level
functions to get the jobs done. Apps written this way can careless what the
base hardware actually is. It talks at a higher command level and the host
performs all the low level functions and all low level / high level
conversions.
> This is the basis as well for the MP3/WAV sound processing, Ethernet,
Bluetooth and WiFi development currently going on at Cloud-9.
>
> Spoke briefly on this at the fest this past year, could spend a whole
seminar on this alone. Routines for DNS, NO-IP client, Ping, SMTP, SNTP,
UDP, WhatsMyIP are some of the current low level routines already
functioning. These are on the Wiznet platform, eight sockets currently
available. Off loading this to another device, to free up the CoCo to
process other tasks.
>
> Not wishing to hijack Brett's original thread.......
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark Marlette
> http://www.cloud9tech.com
> mark at cloud9tech.com
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Aaron Wolfe <aawolfe at gmail.com>
> To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 3:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [Coco] IP packets on my coco
>
>
> I've been wishing for something like this to be connected to a coco for a
> long time.  In fact when I learned about these things is when I kind of
> lost interest in further DriveWire work... this is just a better solution
> imho.
>
> Then while exploring gary's (amazing) work with coco3 fpga, I thought:
hey,
> now we can connect one of those network stack in a chip things real easily
> since the de1 can talk to them.   I talked with Gary and some other
> coconuts about this, and as I recall everyone thought compatibility with
> 'real' cocos was a major concern.  In a small community, it helps
everybody
> have fun when projects inter-operate.
>
> If you can get the same controller attached to a real coco and the DEx
> boards, that's a standard that lots of different projects could use to do
a
> lot of cool stuff.  Seems worth doing to me.  Have you thought about ways
> to avoid being tied to a single controller, or if that matters?
>
> Sounds awesome.  And also major kudos to Brett for the nice work on Fuzix
>
> -Aaron
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Dave Philipsen <dave at davebiz.com> wrote:
> >
> > The ESP8266 itself.  In a full-blown networking implementation you would
> be able to have multiple connections all going at the same time.  This
> would be difficult with the ESP8266 as it stands now. The fact of the
> matter is, if you use the ESP8266 for a DECB program it will be more than
> adequate as you won't be doing any multi-tasking where other programs
would
> need to access it at the same time.  If you wanted to use it under NitrOS9
> which could also require that you write a device driver for it, then you
> may have a problem running multiple programs simultaneously that would be
> using the internet.
> >
> > As I said, though, it's possible that someone could re-write the
firmware
> of the ESP8266 to make it work.  There are already people out there who
are
> customizing it.
> >
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/6/2016 2:20 PM, Salvador Garcia via Coco wrote:
> >>
> >> "...Wifi module may be a little restrictive as far as doing full-blown
> networking..."
> >>
> >> Are the restrictions more to do with the implementation of the CoCo on
> the FPGA, the DE1 hardware, or the ESP8266 itself?
> >> Thanks! Salvador
> >>
> >>
> >>        From: Dave Philipsen <dave at davebiz.com>
> >>   To: CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts <coco at maltedmedia.com>
> >>   Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 12:35 PM
> >>   Subject: Re: [Coco] IP packets on my coco
> >>     Gary is working on the support for the Wifi module as we speak.  In
> >> fact, he already has some support in his latest test build.  As Brett
> >> has already pointed out, the Wifi module may be a little restrictive as
> >> far as doing full-blown networking but it will certainly be handy in a
> >> general way for doing the most common things like telnet, ftp, email,
> >> http, etc.
> >>
> >> The ESP8266 wifi module is also end user programmable so there's always
> >> the option of creating a custom version.
> >>
> >> I'm thinking that any sort of serial-to-ethernet module is going to
have
> >> some restrictions (if for nothing else, the bottleneck of squeezing a
> >> lot of data through a standard serial port) as opposed to a 'real'
> >> ethernet interface.  Although Gary's plans are for a huge FIFO on the
> >> Wifi interface which would be very helpful.
> >>
> >> Some months ago I successfully transferred a file from a PC to a DE-1
> >> board using the wifi module.  The DE-1 board was not running CoCo3FPGA
> >> but it was a 6809-based computer.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dave
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco

-- 
Coco mailing list
Coco at maltedmedia.com
https://pairlist5.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/coco