On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 12:10:14AM +0200, Kevin Townsend wrote: > I don't think the disconnect is a massive issue at this point and worth > a lot of effort. There are higher priorities as you said, which gets a > +1 from me anyway, and it isn't entirely unreasonable based on the spec > (thanks for the reference!). > > I think the following are probably worth the effort, though: > > 1. Getting CCCD update events into a callback (important for power > management) > 2. Alerting users of an indicate failure > > A disconnect might seem valid for #2, but I would argue that this then > removes all of the value of indicate even existing! > > Even if a failure does cause an eventual disconnect (up to 30s later!), > we still have no way to know if the cause of that failure was the lack > of an indicate response, or ... something else (power failure on the > Central, etc.). Indicate significantly slows data throughput down in > BLE, but is the only means to have genuinely reliable transactions where > we can recover later, which is important transferring binary files or > other similar information. We should always know if an indicate write > passed or failed in my opinion, and tracking disconnect might be a good > indicator but isn't 100% reliable. > > I'd of course be curious to hear other people's opinions on this!
I completely agree - these are essential features. I'm looking at adding both of those right now. Thanks, Chris
