Hi,


As far as I know there was some mis-alignment between them. This is reason why 
we are not using ?core.* ? naming scheme.

Anyway, regarding group related interface, we?d like to change the interface 
name also from oc.mi.c ? oc.mi.grp  [JIRA: IOT-253].



Additionally, ? oc.mi.* ? need to be changed ? oic.* ? before 1.0 release.

We also need to change standard core specification document for these section 
also.



BR, Uze Choi

From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Zhang, Caiwen
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 3:15 PM
To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
Subject: [dev] A question about IoTivity core Interface



Hi,



When read iotivity code, I find following interfaces are defined:



   // Default interface

    const std::string DEFAULT_INTERFACE = "oc.mi.def";



    // Used in discovering (GET) links to other resources of a collection.

    const std::string LINK_INTERFACE = "oc.mi.ll";



    // Used in GET, PUT, POST, DELETE methods on links to other resources of a 
collection.

    const std::string BATCH_INTERFACE = "oc.mi.b";



   // Used in GET, PUT, POST methods on links to other remote resources of a 
group.

const std::string GROUP_INTERFACE = "oc.mi.c";





In the CoAP spec(draft-ietf-core-interfaces-02), it has already defined some 
similar interfaces:



   +-------------------+----------+------------------------------------+

   |         Interface   | if=      | Methods                            |

   +-------------------+----------+------------------------------------+

   |         Link List   | core.ll  | GET                                |

   |             Batch    | core.b   | GET, PUT, POST (where applicable)  |

   |      Linked Batch  | core.lb  | GET, PUT, POST, DELETE (where      |

   |                      |           | applicable)                        |

   |            Sensor   | core.s   | GET                                 |

   |         Parameter  | core.p   | GET, PUT                            |

   |         Read-only  | core.rp  | GET                                 |

  |         Parameter  |           |                                      |

   |          Actuator  | core.a   | GET, PUT, POST                     |

   |           Binding  | core.bnd | GET, POST, DELETE                 |

   +-------------------+----------+------------------------------------+



Is there any reason the standard interfaces are not used? Will it introduce 
compatibility problem with standard CoAP devices?



Thanks,

Caiwen

-------------- next part --------------
HTML ?????? ??????????????...
URL: 
<http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20150112/b699198e/attachment.html>

Reply via email to