Robin2:
Sending data only when there is a change (without any repeats) is a risky strategy.
Not with acknowledgements enabled and proper handling of failed sends. ![]()
In case of multicasts, repeated sends are a simple and good strategy and useful as a heartbeat signal.
[OT]
I favour multicasts for information distribution, so I normally set up a timed send function,
if the data changes, I shorten the current wait to expire on the next tick, pushing the new data out.
A lazy way to keep the distributed information current if changes happen.
[/OT]