On 04/20/2017 04:08 PM, Gregg Reynolds wrote: > On Apr 20, 2017 4:59 PM, "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macieira at intel.com> > wrote: > > On Thursday, 20 April 2017 13:49:45 PDT Gregg Reynolds wrote: >> regarding API: are we talking about standardizing a kind of OCF API or > just >> cleaning up the iotivity API? I'm thinking about DOM, a standard API for > a >> standard data language (HTML). I can imagine some kind of standard OCF >> API, with e.g. registerResource etc. which could be mapped to multiple >> impkementation languages. > > OCF API is out of scope for IoTivity. That needs to be discussed in OCF > itself. > > > i thought ocf was purely protocol+datamodel. an API is a whole 'nother > hairball. are they working on an api? > > to me the two are orthogonal. anybody can design an API for OCF. It would > not have any effect on compliance. that is, compliance is about the > protocol and datamodel, no matter what your programming api is.
It sure looks like an API to me... drawing as it does heavily on the IETF RFCs. It's been demonstrated (modification to Copper plugin) that you can "speak OCF" just from a web browser like Firefox, as long as you're willing to squint to ignore complicated bits like, oh, security. It's just that as something that looks like a RESTful web-style API, it's not that directly applicable to people wanting to code in C++/C/Java/etc.
