I should also note and clarify that the online docs only reflect the last stable release and not the unstable code in master. You can generate up to date docs from master by running "cmake -Denable_docs=ON" and then typing "make". As mentioned before, the franca idl-based docs (right now just the DBus API) are not yet compatible with doxygen, but we are working on it. Hopefully we can get it working before the next stable release 0.12.
-Kevron On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Rees, Kevron <kevron.m.r...@intel.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 8:23 AM, David Katz <david.k...@bmw-carit.de> wrote: >> Looks good, thanks! I had focused on the docs, which seem to document the >> older attributes still. >> > > Right, the online docs are deficient since we switched to franca idl. > Doxygen doesn't know how to create docs for franca at the moment. > > -Kevron > >> >> -- >> BMW Car IT GmbH >> David Katz >> Petuelring 116 >> 80809 München >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ------------- >> BMW Car IT GmbH >> Geschäftsführer: Michael Würtenberger und Reinhard Stolle >> Sitz und Registergericht: München HRB 134810 >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ------------- >> >> >> >> >> On 09.09.2014 17:07, "Rees, Kevron" <kevron.m.r...@intel.com> wrote: >> >>>Brett is correct. The intention is for the AMB data standard, which >>>predates the w3c specification, to follow as closely as possible the >>>w3c vehicle data specification. We've already started harmonizing and >>>if you look through the amb DBus API IDL specification[1] you can see >>>older interfaces/attributes being deprecated in favor of the new W3C >>>interfaces/attributes. >>> >>>-Kevron >>> >>>[1] - >>>https://github.com/otcshare/automotive-message-broker/blob/master/docs/amb >>>.idl#L285 >>> >>>On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:50 AM, Branch, Brett <brett.bra...@intel.com> >>>wrote: >>>> Hi David, >>>> AMB is meant to be an implementation of the W3C Vehicle API Spec, so >>>>they are already unified. (There are some variations in that AMB was >>>>developed as the spec was being written and was still evolving, and both >>>>are still evolving currently. But it is absolutely the intention that >>>>AMB aligns with the spec.) >>>> >>>> -Brett >>>> >>>> From: David Katz >>>><david.k...@bmw-carit.de<mailto:david.k...@bmw-carit.de>> >>>> Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2014 at 6:35 AM >>>> To: "ivi@lists.tizen.org<mailto:ivi@lists.tizen.org>" >>>><ivi@lists.tizen.org<mailto:ivi@lists.tizen.org>> >>>> Subject: AMB vs W3C Vehicle API Specification >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I have been looking at the interfaces offered by the AMB, and obviously >>>>see quite an overlap with the W3C Vehicle API Specification. >>>> http://otcshare.github.io/automotive-message-broker/html/annotated.html >>>> vs >>>> >>>>https://rawgit.com/w3c/automotive-bg/master/snapshots/data_spec_snapshot_ >>>>latest.html >>>> >>>> Ignoring language syntax for a second and just looking at these as >>>>abstract interfaces offering vehicle data to compatible applications in >>>>a OEM-independant way, what speaks against unifying the two concepts to >>>>support a common set of interfaces and attributes? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> David Katz >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> BMW Car IT GmbH >>>> David Katz >>>> Petuelring 116 >>>> 80809 München >>>> >>>> >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>--------------- >>>> BMW Car IT GmbH >>>> Geschäftsführer: Michael Würtenberger und Reinhard Stolle >>>> Sitz und Registergericht: München HRB 134810 >>>> >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>--------------- >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> IVI mailing list >>>> IVI@lists.tizen.org >>>> https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/ivi >> _______________________________________________ IVI mailing list IVI@lists.tizen.org https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/ivi
