On Friday, 1 June 2018 13:24:32 PDT Gregg Reynolds wrote: > > I don't think this should be in IoTivity. > > How is this different from the cloud thing? That goes waaaay beyond > Iotivity. If, strictly speaking, iotivity is about a reference > implementation of the OCF protocol, then what is a project involving a > cloud server etc doing in the iotivity project?
There has to be at least some relation to IoTivity and the OCF protocol / standard. A mere CoAP implementation with no intention to follow by providing OCF-compatible services on top doesn't cut. A Cloud implementation that is used to talk to some API provided in IoTivity is. > Let's be consistent. If the proposal under consideration can be viewed as a > component that implementors can use to build their own OCF-compliant > engines, then we can only reject it on pain of inconsistency. Two wrongs don't make a right. But note I don't think I'm being inconsistent. I don't think IoTivity should accept projects that just happen to be components to someone who may want to implement OCF services. Otherwise, we would find ourselves hosting operating systems, graphical libraries or HTML generators. Note: I did think and propose expanding the scope of the IoTivity project to include more IoT-related technologies. That extension was not accepted, so I'm now following the directions the project is going on. > Let's back up and look at the big picture. The kernel of iotivity is csdk. > The cxx stuff is just another language binding - it should not be > privileged information. The Java API is no different - it depends on the > cxx API, but that is optional, I have a Java API that depends only on the c > API. Ok. > More language bindings is better. I guess we have javascript bindings, but > you would never know that from the website. I'm looking at Lua. I have a > working Flutter implementation. Go would be nice. Swift, c#, etc. Sure. I don't have a problem with this. If the proposal were to create a Go API for IoTivity in the long run, I would support it. It isn't. I asked specifically and the proposal is to do CoAP *only*. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#9629): https://lists.iotivity.org/g/iotivity-dev/message/9629 View All Messages In Topic (15): https://lists.iotivity.org/g/iotivity-dev/topic/20405830 Mute This Topic: https://lists.iotivity.org/mt/20405830/21656 New Topic: https://lists.iotivity.org/g/iotivity-dev/post Change Your Subscription: https://lists.iotivity.org/g/iotivity-dev/editsub/21656 Group Home: https://lists.iotivity.org/g/iotivity-dev Contact Group Owner: [email protected] Terms of Service: https://lists.iotivity.org/static/tos Unsubscribe: https://lists.iotivity.org/g/iotivity-dev/unsub Email sent to: [email protected] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
