On quinta-feira, 4 de fevereiro de 2016 13:50:24 PST Mitch Kettrick wrote: > Hi Thiago, > > Thank you for your reply. > > Regarding bandwidth and power consumption, I've never implemented a protocol > in HW so you may be right that sending extra payload won't have an effect. > We all come to this with our direct experience and our assumptions and > often times we're wrong no matter how right we think we are. :)
Hello Mitch You're right, and at this point we're both speculating. In any case, the power itself is not the issue here, so let's table it. > Regarding the fact that in the end, the Client dictates the interface used, > I agree. But, many people who write client applications won't know that if > the Default is oic.if.baseline, they could save power by adding an oic.if.s > query to their request; otherwise the Server will be forced to operate in an > less efficient way. > > If we don't agree on giving Servers the flexibility to set their own Default > Interface based on the application, one solution, as I said before, is to > make the Interface that uses the fewest number of bits as the Default > Interface wherever possible to ensure that if Servers have to send "the > whole package" it's because the Client explicitly asked for it. I agree on having multiple interfaces, I agree on making sure that application developers know about the more efficient ones and choose to use it whenever applicable. I don't agree that setting the default is a way to achieve the above. At best, I think it has zero benefit or impact, since it will never be used in decision- making. At worst, it's a red herring and confusing, leading to poorly written applications failing to communicate when the default in a device is unexpected. (hint: add this to the certification testing; the default should *always* be a nonsensical interface that no one should be using) -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
