Any brave dive computer download testers out there?
dirk at hohndel.org
Sun Apr 22 13:19:02 PDT 2018
> On Apr 22, 2018, at 1:09 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2018, 12:42 Dirk Hohndel <dirk at hohndel.org <mailto:dirk at hohndel.org>> wrote:
> I know we initially didn't use the fingerprint (5 or so years ago) because back then something was broken with it.
> Linus, is there still a design reason why we can't use it?
> It still has the exact same problem it always had: it's random binary data that we'd have to encode some way.
> In practice, I suspect it's always just a number, but the interface is nasty.
> It would be much better as a string. Of course. Now it can be anything, so even if it's a string we'd have to encode it somehow.
> And for most dive computers it's pure garbage, and it's impossible to tell which dive computer it actually matters for. So you have to encode this garbage whether it's useful or not.
You make it sound so wonderful... libdivecomputer returns a char * and a size to us - which is different for different dive computers. Lovely.
So all we can do is store the size and base64 encode the binary data that we get.
Yeah, it's ugly, but it should make a huge difference in BLE download speed if I understand correctly what's going on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the subsurface