Basically, i'm trying to figure out if you can add a software to run alongside an already installed POSs, that can also access the barcode scanner?
Does it depend on whom the POSs has been installed with?
Please help!
I'm pretty new in this area, but I know that UPOS has the concept of Sharable Devices, multiple apps can use the device in this case.
Some devices are sharable devices. An example is the keylock. A sharable device allows multiple Control instances to call its methods and access its properties. Also, it may deliver its events to multiple Controls. A sharable device may still limit access to some methods or properties to the Control that has claimed it, or it may deliver some events only to the Control that has claimed it.
https://www.omg.org/retail/unified-pos.htm
#Rachel McConnell,
It is certainly possible for two applications to use the barcode scanner if neither application holds an exclusive claim on the device when it is not actively using the hardware, however many POS applications assume they are the only application using the hardware.
If both applications are using Windows.Devices.PointofService, there is a negotiation process built into the platform that requires the application with an active claim to respond with a retain() to keep the claim if a second application requests a claim. If the first application does not respond with a retain() in a matter of seconds, the claim is revoked and given to the second application. I do not believe other UnifiedPOS implementations provide similar capabilities.
For more information, see: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/devices-sensors/pos-basics-claim
Hope this helps
Terry Warwick, Microsoft
Related
I tried to generate code for a device changing the implementation type to SharedLibrary and renaming the Entry Point to Device_Name.so. I was able to generate and build, but in main.cpp it kept a main function not a make_component to be called by ComponentHost. the device constructors deals with arguments that ComponentHost doesn't, like the Device Manager IOR. I believe this functionality extension implies changing the source code of ComponenHost. Is it part of REDHAWK roadmap? any comments on how can I make it work?
So are you trying to use the shared process space within a node to communicate between devices and services? Because I don't believe that there is tooling specifically for this yet, but I think there is a way to do this. Just to be clear I haven't tried this, but based on the test used by the bulkio ports to determine local vs remote transport usage, I think this will work.
If you look at the persona pattern, you'll see that there is a Programmable Device which is responsible for loading Persona Devices. Most of the details for this aren't necessary for what you're trying to do, but the pattern should be helpful. To accomplish communication between Devices using shared memory, you could generate a Programmable device whose sole purpose is to forward parameters from the DeviceManager to the Personas. The Personas would then act as your normal Devices normally do, just launched in the same process space as one another.
The code generators for the Programmable and Persona Devices are not yet integrated into the IDE, so you'll have to create a new Device project in eclipse for each Device you want (so that you'll have the spd files). Be sure to add the appropriate AggregateDevice interface to your Devices. This let's the framework know that multiple devices can technically be considered one entity, but you can also individually communicate with each. Also make sure that the Programmable is an Executable Device, since it needs to launch the Persona Devices. Then, from the command line, you can run redhawk-codegen - - pgdevice </path/to/programmable/spd> to generate a Programmable Device, and redhawk-codegen - - persona </path/to/persona/spd> to generate your Persona Device(s).
Once all of this is done, you'll notice the main function for your Programmable launches the Device like you described in your question. However, the main function for the Personas has code to launch the Device as either a standalone Device or as simply an object in its own thread.
This should allow the bulkio ports of the Programmable and Personas to communicate with each other via shared memory. Obviously this will break down if you attempt to push data out of the process, at least until someone adds interprocess shared memory via something like shm. Not sure if that's on the road map, but it would certainly be neat.
Update: It appears that interprocess shared memory was added in RH 2.1.2, so you should be able to communicate between collocated Devices, Services, and Components using that mechanism. This renders the above unnecessary, but I'm going to leave it for earlier versions of RH.
Let me know if you have any questions!
As of RH 2.1.2, the default behavior for Devices/Services/Components whose user code uses redhawk::buffer for the data memory allocator and the stream API for interaction with the bulkio port is to use a shared memory transport between C++ entities that are running in different processes
I have an application requirement where certain audio settings need to be made at the hardware level rather than the session level. I have been able to hit most of the areas in question using a third party API. However, a new requirement has come up and I'm having trouble accessing the setting.
We are primarily on Win7 systems though Win10 is not out of scope. We need to be able to disable Line-In as it appears to be causing some interference with the later run session recordings that are made.
Our working environment includes multiple systems/locations. The application that handles recordings is specialized and cannot be changed for something like a base setting. Also, with newer systems the line-in and rear microphone are a combined plug and, when used, the OS asks which way you want to use it.
I realize that changing audio settings and the hardware level can be problematic but any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated as this project needs to completed as quickly as possible.
I am working on a universal application, and I am trying to detect whether it runs on a desktop computer or on a real IoT device (Raspberry PI 2). Following the recommendation, I am trying to use API contract checks, however this returns true even on the desktop machine:
ApiInformation.IsApiContractPresent( "Windows.Devices.DevicesLowLevelContract", 1, 0 );
Obviously when I try to call GpioController.GetDefault(), it fails on the desktop, but strangely with a FileNotFoundException: "The specified module could not be found."
So what is the right way to detect a real device?
Thanks for your help,
György
Edit:
On some desktops GpioController.GetDefault() returns null, while on other machines it fails with FileNotFoundException.
Edit:
My goal is to ensure that I can safely call any GPIO or IoT Core specific APIs without using try-catch blocks everywhere to handle exceptions when running on a non-IoT device.
You can find the type of device your app is running on by
Windows.System.Profile.AnalyticsInfo.VersionInfo.DeviceFamily
Source:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/windows.system.profile.analyticsversioninfo.aspx
Microsoft does suggest to maximise your reach with universal apps by checking for capabilities instead of just checking the device family.
There's an article about all that here:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/dn894631.aspx
It depends on what aspect of a "real device" you want to check. Using API Contract information is not a good proxy, as you have found (although it should return null, not crash, on desktop -- that's a bug). Using AnalyticsInfo can be a reasonable proxy but you have to be careful about receiving new values over time, plus it actually identifies the OS type rather than the physical hardware. Enumerating hardware devices is the best way to detect hardware, but they can come and go dynamically as the user plugs and unplugs them.
What is it you are looking to do differently based on the answer?
My company has a Compact Framework.NET WinForms application which runs on rugged handhelds manufactured by companies like Motorola, Intermec and Psion. These are expensive devices with built-in barcode scanners that are used in harsh conditions.
The configuration of the handheld application is managed by business users through our web site. The devices pick up the configuration when they sync from within the handheld application. Field workers use the handhelds, business users use the web site.
The business users have expressed the desire to, for lack of a better description, configure and preview or even fully use the actual handheld application through a web browser. They want to make configuration changes in the web site and immediately see what the impact will be in the handheld, without having to have a physical device (again, the devices are quite expensive). They want to be able to create training materials or conduct sales meetings and be able to demonstrate the application to their customers without having a physical device on hand.
Microsoft offers several Device Emulators, but they are probably too complex for business users. They are developer tools. One idea might be to somehow use the emulators within virtual machines possibly in conjunction with Terminal Services or even some kind of clever screen capture/VNC to show an emulated device in a browser. I suspect running emulators in the fashion may not exactly be a scalable solution, however. Also, only one emulator at a time on a single machine can be "cradled" and connected to network.
I'm looking for any suggestions which might help me meet the business users' requirements.
Thanks.
The only thing I can think of offhand is not that simple, but would probably be useful (and certainly the only "true" way for them to test).
I'd create a service that works like the Remote Display app (part of the WinMo Developer power tools, also ships with Platform Builder for CE), in fact it might just use that app (the source code for it actually ships with Platform Builder, so the eval version of PB would get you that source).
You would then create a web interface that acts as a "shell" for that service, marshalling the display image out to a web page and image clicks back as mouse events to the device.
I have a new set up for software development for iOS devices. I am using MACs for the development and the company may grow from three employees right now to 20 in near future. I want to make the MACs secure so that the client code is safe and does not leave office.
Few ways I can think of a notorious employee trying to do that is
Get it on USB-key/External-Disk
Burn it on CD/DVD
Transfer it to a bluetooth device
Transfer it to Infra-Red Device
Email it as an attachment
Upload it to Dropbox or any such service
FTP to a remote server
To handle this one by one I need to do following
Disable USB access to user accounts (only admin allowed to insert a new device). But often times we need to stick in iphone/ipod touch to do on-device testing. How can I restrict the devices or get notified when someone tried to put a foreign device in any of the USB slots?
Disable CD/DVD write functions except for admin. Can I do this?
Disable bluetooth access. And if someone tries to pair a device, can I get notified or maitain a log?
Wireless keyboard and mouse use Infra-Red (IR) technology. How can I limit these devices?
Need to block all outgoing emails except company emails. Can I keep a tab on all outgoing traffic (may be by file size) so that I know some one is trying to up-load a file?
Again disable access to such website. But then every 15 days a new service springs up. How do I tackle this?
Disable ftp outgoing services. Can I do this?
Importantly is there a monitoring software that will allow me to do this? I don't mind paying. But since this is a start-up I cannot spend a fortune on this. And of-course I prefer open source solutions for the control it gives me to extend and scratch my specialized itch :)
Finally I hope I wont be judged as a bad boss or something. I am all for developer freedom but we are into consulting business and protecting client code takes priority.
Thanks for your time and looking forward to your help.
Dev.
If you don't trust your developer not to run off with your source code, don't hire them. They can find a way around your "solution"
If you can't trust any developers to not steal your source code, work alone. Anything known by two people is no longer a secret.