On Apr 20, 2017 5:01 PM, "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 20 April 2017 13:49:45 PDT Gregg Reynolds wrote: > > Is there any feedback from other people? Which one would you prefer? What > > would you do differently? > > 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. One more thing: I wasn't talking about code or API. I was talking about project structure. There has been no reply to my suggestion or Uze/Dwarka's counter-suggestion. understood, but unfortunately code structure/api and project structure are not orthogonal. so my feedback is that iotivity should be more modular. at the least there should be a kernel, which does the protocol, nothing more. all the other stuff , e.g resource directory, should be separate, as optional addons. gregg -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20170420/16a22816/attachment.html>
