Hi Thiago, Can you compare between strings and a structured binary format? Whole context requires the exact & clear terminology consensus.
BR, Uze Choi -----Original Message----- From: oswg at openinterconnect.org [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2015 6:10 AM To: ???(Uze Choi) Cc: oswg at openinterconnect.org; ???; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: [oswg] Re: [Group Action Set discussion] RE: [Request to Check - by 18:00 on Mar.3rd in PST] Draft Action Item (with Deadline and Owner) after OSWG F2F Meeting in Santa Clara On Friday 06 March 2015 11:39:55 ??? wrote: > Hi Thiago, > > I'd like to continue the discussion regarding OSWG Action item "Link > to continue the discussion on technical details regarding the format > of an ActionSet." > > This is the presentation used in OIC meeting. Hi Uze and others My argument during the meeting was that we should not use strings. We should instead use a structured binary format instead, so that servers do not need to implement string parsing and the associated pitfalls that come with those. But as the discussion went on, I asked for some more details on the design of the group action. I was left wondering if the group presented itself as a regular OIC resource and, if so, why should the client care whether it's controlling one single device or multiple? I do see the value for a resource representing a group to also have a resource type that allows querying the membership in the group and possibly controlling it. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
