Erich, Absolutely. It is on the control-manager branch. I have an action item on my long list to go and review it myself. Let me know if you need more guidance than knowing the branch exists.
Pat -----Original Message----- From: Keane, Erich Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 12:29 PM To: Lankswert, Patrick Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; Macieira, Thiago; uzchoi at samsung.com Subject: Re: [dev] Control Manager That seems acceptable to me. I'd definitely like a chance to SEE the generated code (or have it pointed out to me!) so we can judge viability of #2 (since it seems that #1 is out). On Fri, 2015-01-23 at 15:41 +0000, Lankswert, Patrick wrote: > To all, > > Vijay and I have talked to the owner regarding the plan for the code > generation tool. It is proprietary (not for sale). I do not know if they can > freely distribute it in binary form though. Out of respect for the owner, we > should assume that their decision to not open the tool is final until > notified otherwise. That said, I (and I believe the owners) appreciate > everybody's thoughts on the issue. > > I think that we have a general consensus, but since the control manager falls > into the services domain, I want to give time to Uze to form and share his > opinion. > > I would like the plan to be: > 1) Early next week, I would like to hear from Uze > 2) Put together and publish our collected recommendation > 3) Assuming the OSWG does not object, we execute our recommendation by the > end of next week. > > Can we agree on this plan? BTW, I really would like an affirmative agreement > of 'yes' or 'It would be better, if...' from the folks in this conversation > to date: John, Thiago, Erich, Uze, Felix and anybody who is following: > > I want to thank everybody for the rapid give and take. > > BTW, the next order of business is dependency handling. > > Pat > > -----Original Message----- > From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org > [mailto:iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of ???(Uze > Choi) > Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 8:41 PM > To: Macieira, Thiago; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: Re: [dev] Control Manager > > Hi All, > > Here Code issue regarding the Code generator is not so critical I believe. > Current Control Manager Code generation mechanism is not so sophisticated > that developer can easily extend the other resource model with referencing to > generated code. > If the code generator make strange code cannot be done by manually, then it > is critical but this case is far away from this. > > Regarding merging into the master, there are some criterias I need to think > about. > Aligning to the IoTivity resource architecture is most important > consideration factor I think. > I'll evaluate how to align the IoTivity concept and how to maintain the code > then decide to merge into master. > > BR, Uze Choi > -----Original Message----- > From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev- > bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 6:14 AM > To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > Subject: Re: [dev] Control Manager > > On Thursday 22 January 2015 10:55:37 Keane, Erich wrote: > > I agree with John. If at all possible, #1 would be awesome, and it > > would be worth exploring what it would take to make it public/free. > > > > #2 is definitely something I would be OK with, but if the generated > > code isn't very maintainable, we might be better off just scrapping > > the code if we can't do #1. > > > > #3 seems like a non-starter for me. Any open-source project that > > starts with "buy a $500 piece of software" isn't very open to me. > > Oh, that's a good point. Option #3 is a sore, sticking point that our > competition will gladly publicise. > > I had to be exhaustive in the options, but you're right, it's a non-starter. > > And just to be clear, there's a fourth option, which is not to have the code > at all. So another option we need to explore is what the relevance of the > code is and what gets impacted if it's not there. > > I think we need to answer these questions: > > a) is the generated code readable at all? > b) is it possible to maintain the generated code by hand? How much effort? > c) what platforms does the generator currently run on? > d) how difficult would it be to reimplement the generator in (say) Python? > e) does the code need to be generated at all? Like Erich said, we may be > better off redoing it by hand, > f) what happens to the feature if the generated code isn't present? > g) what happens if we don't include the feature? Could it be moved to a > separate project, outside of IoTivity? > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev > > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
