I would like to put "+1" on Uze's proposal. Having 2 different IoTivity libraries on one device to support or to use both the un-secured and secured resources seems not right. FYI, currwntly the "Resource clients" are unavoidably mandated to have both un-secured & secured version of IoTivity libs to communicate with Resource servers with un-secured or secured resources.
Thank you. Jay. 2016. 5. 26. ?? 12:46? "???(Uze Choi)" <uzchoi at samsung.com>?? ??: > Hi Randeep, > > > > As a member Developer Ecosystem Build TG, I have the requirement merging > the non-secure binary and secure binary into single one. > > Currently, secure mode build does not provide the communication with > non-secure resource. > > If this is configurable by API or both support by default, it will be very > easy to distribute iotivity binary. > > Moreover, current separate build scheme cannot support the use case that > connects both resources one is secure resource and the other is non-secure > resource. > > e.g) An application read the temperature resource (public resource) and > personal information storage resource together. > > Please evaluate this requirement from maintainer perspective. > > If feasible, I?ll issue the jira ticket for this thing. > > > > BR, Uze Choi > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20160606/aff2be8c/attachment.html>
