Hi Thiago,
The string(actionSet) is for the in-process-use only. :)
Meaning, the actions will be tokenized and not all but only some of the tokens
will be sent over the wire.
For example, in the actionSet "AllBulbOn*yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss
1*uri=coap://x.x.x.10:xxxx/a/light|power=on*?
the {?key?:?power?, ?value?:?on?} will be delivered to
?coap://x.x.x.10:xxxx/a.light <coap://x.x.x.10:xxxx/a.light>? at ?yyyy-mm-dd
hh:mm:ss?
The main reason why we didn?t use JSON format for the ActionSet is because, as
you may already notice,
once we register the actionSet with JSON format, we have to parse it inside the
Base in order to check
when & where to sent the actions.
Then the JSON parsing logic will influence the size of the Base which we also
don?t want it to be.
In order not to increase the size of the Base critically and minimized the
modification work inside the base.
we?ve defined such format to implement the ?GroupAction? feature.
However, as Hyunjun mentioned in the previous his email, we do agree your
suggestion and we also had proposed
the same idea.
Therefore, if it?s okey we?d like to discuss about including the limited JSON
parsing functionality inside the base
OR we?re open to discuss about the more efficient alternatives if there?s any.
:)
Thank you.
Jay.
> 2015. 3. 10., ?? 12:09, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com> ??:
>
> Right, there's no JSON in the base.
>
> But I still don't know whether we're talking about sending those over the
> wire
> or whether they were API only. Where can I see more details about this
> feature
> suggestion? Can someone create a JIRA entry for it with more details?
>
> On Monday 09 March 2015 08:23:38 ??? wrote:
>> Hi, Thiago.
>>
>> Our initial proposal(Using Json Form) is same your opinion.
>> But Samsung & Intel didn't assent the proposal whether json parser use in
>> the base. Now, we need to use json parser on top level in the base.
>> So we should consider about it.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> BR. Hyunjun.
>>
>> ???( HyunJun Kim )
>> Engineer
>> IoT Solution Lab. | Web & Convergence Team.
>> Software R&D Center
>> Digital Media & Communications Business
>> SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO,. LTD.
>> Mobile +82-10-5096-0151
>> E-Mail HyunJun2.Kim at samsung.com | kiness at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ------- Original Message -------
>> Sender : Thiago Macieira<thiago.macieira at intel.com>
>> Date : 2015-03-09 15:11 (GMT+09:00)
>> Title : Re: [oswg] Re: Group Action Set discussion
>>
>>
>> On Monday 09 March 2015 14:28:27 ??? wrote:
>>> Hi Thiago,
>>>
>>> Can you compare between strings and a structured binary format?
>>> Whole context requires the exact & clear terminology consensus.
>>
>> Hi Uze
>>
>> The spec only deals with requests and responses in an abstract form, not the
>> encoding. We should approach it by a JSON-like type of request. So instead
>> of one string:
>>
>> "AllBulbOn*yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss 1
>> 1*uri=coap://x.x.x.10:xxxx/a/light|power=on*"
>>
>> We should break it down as:
>>
>> {
>> "cmd": "AllBulbOn",
>> "date": "yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm:ss",
>> "uri": "coap://x.x.x.10:xxxx/a/light|power=on"
>> }
>>
>> For the API, we should have the proper structured form so that we can easily
>> access the fields. That also eases translation to wire format.
>>
>> We already have collection types in the IoTivity API.
>>
>> --
>> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>> Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
>
> --
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20150310/a46440b6/attachment.html>
