Hi Vijay/Thiago, If there is very smart logic to decide the appropriate adaptor, it could be best. However, framework cannot know which connectivity adaptor is appropriate for anonymous application. Let's assume there are two devices connected thru BT and WiFi together. Then, Framework internally can aware that there are BT, WiFi available adaptors. One application is Video streaming App. requiring the large bandwidth. The other is notification messaging App requiring small and not-frequent data. How the Framework could be smart in this case?
Anyway If we definitely need the smart selection logic I would like to make as follows. 1) Framework has the priority for adaptor and If Application does not specify, then follow the framework policy else follow the specified one. 2) Framework monitors data transmission rate and designate the appropriate adaptor. But these trials does not look deterministic. BR, Uze Choi -----Original Message----- From: Kesavan, Vijay S [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 9:10 PM To: Macieira, Thiago; ??? (uzchoi at samsung.com) Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: RE: [dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity Uze - perhaps you are in the best position to address Thiago's question on why the services require adaptor type (see below). --Vijay > The current CA code mainly focusses on item 1, some limited support > for 2, and no support for 3. > > The current APIs only support one adaptor of each adaptor type, a > starting step for APIs as well as implementation, and not a long term > solution. It should be noted that there are no current plans for CA > to have "smarts" to know that resources are reachable via multiple > adaptors and manage selection/switching between adaptors. For this > reason, and also because existing Iotivity services asked that the > adaptor type be exposed, current APIs include adaptor-type information. When you say "no current plans", are you including "no work expected before 1.0"? As long as CA is not part of the IoTivity API that users can use, we can fix it later. Otherwise, it's a fatal flaw and blocks 1.0. Why did the IoTivity services require the adaptor type? That's totally surprising to me. Given all of this discussion... sorry to be blunt, but do we need CA at all? It seems to be going in the wrong direction.
