Hi Uze, No worries, no need for an apology. Tim Kourt from our team has pushed to the branch that Pat created and is currently preparing an email with a link to the change set.
We?d like the feedback of the contributors on this list and there is still a small amount of work to be done before it could be reviewed and considered for promotion to the master branch. Regards, Bernie On 1/19/15, 5:08 PM, "???(Uze Choi)" <uzchoi at samsung.com> wrote: >Hi Pat/Bernie, > >I didn't intend to claim the android development and sharing status. >If you feel like that, please apologize me. >From the release point of view, I'd like to give my opinion that Android >service API also need to be done to align to Android Base API release. > >Regarding primitive service Android API, demo implementation has been >done but not pushed into the Git yet. >We expect to clean up and push the code into the Git in this and next >week. > >BR, Uze Choi >-----Original Message----- >From: Lankswert, Patrick [mailto:patrick.lankswert at intel.com] >Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 1:08 AM >To: uzchoi at samsung.com; Keany, Bernie; juney at samsung.com; 'SOON HWANG >CHOI'; Bowden, George; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; Kourt, Tim A >Cc: Skarpness, Mark; felix.freimann at mediatek.com; Agerstam, Mats G; >'???'; '???'; '??'; '???'; '???'; '???'; '???'; '???'; '???'; '???'; >'???'; Subramaniam, Ravi; Moses, Jaideep; Tung, Mark Y; Mirani, Jawid; >Badder, Christopher S >Subject: RE: IoTivity v1.0.0 criteria proposal > >Uze, > >I *think* that Bernie's folks intend to share by pushing their code for >everybody's review in a branch. This will allow anybody and everybody an >opportunity to review, make comments/changes and finally agree before >committing to master or release branch. > >There are a number of things that I would like to see in the Android API >also. Let's see what they have. > >Is the service API for Android in master and currently supported by a >build task? > >Pat > >-----Original Message----- >From: ???(Uze Choi) [mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com] >Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 4:58 AM >To: Keany, Bernie; Lankswert, Patrick; juney at samsung.com; 'SOON HWANG >CHOI'; Bowden, George; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; Kourt, Tim A >Cc: Skarpness, Mark; felix.freimann at mediatek.com; Agerstam, Mats G; >'???'; '???'; '??'; '???'; '???'; '???'; '???'; '???'; '???'; '???'; >'???'; Subramaniam, Ravi; Moses, Jaideep; Tung, Mark Y; Mirani, Jawid; >Badder, Christopher S >Subject: RE: IoTivity v1.0.0 criteria proposal > >Hi Bernie, > >From Android Platform porting view, Let me list up related tasks as >follows. > - Android Base API re-factorization. (Intel > - Corresponding Primitive Service Implementation change for Android Base >API change. > - Android Primitive Service API implementation. > >Regarding Android Base API re-factorization, we have a common consensus >for API style among Intel, MediaTek and Samsung, but new API >Specification has not been shared yet. >According to this new Android Base API, lots of modification will be in >the primitive service. >We have also made the Android API for primitive service and they are >mostly ready. But we also have a dependency with Base API change also. >These mis-alignment between new Android Base API and need to be cleared >with additional time. > >BR, Uze Choi >-----Original Message----- >From: Keany, Bernie [mailto:bernie.keany at intel.com] >Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2015 12:53 AM >To: Lankswert, Patrick; juney at samsung.com; SOON HWANG CHOI; Bowden, >George; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; Kourt, Tim A >Cc: Skarpness, Mark; felix.freimann at mediatek.com; Agerstam, Mats G; ???; >???; ??; ???; ???; ???; ???; ???; ???; ???; ???; ???; Subramaniam, Ravi; >Moses, Jaideep; Tung, Mark Y; Mirani, Jawid; Badder, Christopher S >Subject: Re: IoTivity v1.0.0 criteria proposal > >Hi Pat .. Thanks for connecting the threads. we?ve completed a >significantly refactored Android API implementation that includes OIC >Client and Server support, this is based on the code we shared in mid >December with Samsung and MediaTek but migrated to M2. > >We believe we will push the code to a WIP branch by Tuesday or Wednesday >of next week and look forward to feedback from the community. After some >review time we will submit to gerrit for upstreaming to the master branch. > >Thanks >Bernie > >From: <Lankswert>, Patrick ><patrick.lankswert at intel.com<mailto:patrick.lankswert at intel.com>> >Date: Friday, January 16, 2015 at 7:42 AM >To: "juney at samsung.com<mailto:juney at samsung.com>" ><juney at samsung.com<mailto:juney at samsung.com>>, SOON HWANG CHOI ><soonhwang.choi at samsung.com<mailto:soonhwang.choi at samsung.com>>, "Bowden, >George" <george.bowden at intel.com<mailto:george.bowden at intel.com>>, >"iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org<mailto:iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org>" ><iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org<mailto:iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org>> >Cc: "Skarpness, Mark" ><mark.skarpness at intel.com<mailto:mark.skarpness at intel.com>>, Felix >Freimann ><felix.freimann at mediatek.com<mailto:felix.freimann at mediatek.com>>, >"Agerstam, Mats G" ><mats.g.agerstam at intel.com<mailto:mats.g.agerstam at intel.com>>, ??? ><thetruth.lee at samsung.com<mailto:thetruth.lee at samsung.com>>, ??? ><kangtae.kim at samsung.com<mailto:kangtae.kim at samsung.com>>, ?? ><kyeo at samsung.com<mailto:kyeo at samsung.com>>, ??? ><igkim.kim at samsung.com<mailto:igkim.kim at samsung.com>>, >"jinguk.jeong at samsung.com<mailto:jinguk.jeong at samsung.com>" ><jinguk.jeong at samsung.com<mailto:jinguk.jeong at samsung.com>>, "Choi) >???(Uze" <uzchoi at samsung.com<mailto:uzchoi at samsung.com>>, ??? ><yw1201.kim at samsung.com<mailto:yw1201.kim at samsung.com>>, ??? ><seungjoong.kim at samsung.com<mailto:seungjoong.kim at samsung.com>>, ??? ><sungkyu.ko at samsung.com<mailto:sungkyu.ko at samsung.com>>, ??? ><junghyun.oh at samsung.com<mailto:junghyun.oh at samsung.com>>, ??? ><soohong.park at samsung.com<mailto:soohong.park at samsung.com>>, ??? ><moonki1.hong at samsung.com<mailto:moonki1.hong at samsung.com>>, >"Subramaniam, Ravi" ><ravi.subramaniam at intel.com<mailto:ravi.subramaniam at intel.com>>, "Moses, >Jaideep" <jaideep.moses at intel.com<mailto:jaideep.moses at intel.com>>, >"Tung, Mark Y" <mark.y.tung at intel.com<mailto:mark.y.tung at intel.com>>, >"Mirani, Jawid" <jawid.mirani at intel.com<mailto:jawid.mirani at intel.com>>, >"Badder, Christopher S" ><christopher.s.badder at intel.com<mailto:christopher.s.badder at intel.com>>, >Bernie Keany <bernie.keany at intel.com<mailto:bernie.keany at intel.com>> >Subject: RE: Re: Re: RE: IoTivity v1.0.0 criteria proposal > >June, >It would be best to take these discussion to the mailing list. >Bernie?s team, which was not on this email, had some time and has >flushed out the server API for Android. I cannot commit for them, but I >think that they are close to done with the implementation. >Pat > >From: JuneYong Young [mailto:juney at samsung.com] >Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 3:01 AM >To: SOON HWANG CHOI; ???; Bowden, George; >iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org<mailto:iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org> >Cc: Skarpness, Mark; Lankswert, Patrick; >felix.freimann at mediatek.com<mailto:felix.freimann at mediatek.com>; >Agerstam, Mats G; ???; ???; ??; ???; ???; ???; ???; ???; ???; ???; ???; >???; Subramaniam, Ravi; Moses, Jaideep; Tung, Mark Y; Mirani, Jawid; >Badder, Christopher S >Subject: Re: Re: Re: RE: IoTivity v1.0.0 criteria proposal > > >Please refer to the updated "IoTivity v1.0.0 release criteria" in the >attached. > >If anyone have an opinion, then let me know. > > > >George, Felix, > >Would you have any comments for the following action items? > >1 > > >George & Felix to give opinion about v1.0.0 concept (~1/9) > > >close > > >2 > > >George & Felix to provide the additional features that will be on v1.0.0 >if any (~1/9) > > >3 > > >George & Felix to provide the backward compatibility review result >(~1/16 or earlier) > > >? > > > > >Felix, > >Could you let me know if Android server API implementation is to be in >v1.0.0? > >?Android Support > > >Android API refactoring and completion (Server API Support) > > >TBD > > > > >June Yong Young > >Principal Engineer >Web & Convergence Team, Software R&D Center Samsung Electronics Co.,Ltd. > >T: +82-31-301-6107, M: +82-10-9530-6107 >E-mail :juney at samsung.com<mailto:juney at samsung.com> > > > >------- Original Message ------- > >Sender : SOON HWANG >CHOI<soonhwang.choi at samsung.com<mailto:soonhwang.choi at samsung.com>> >S5/Senior Engineer/SQE Lab./Samsung Electronics > >Date : 2015-01-15 16:35 (GMT+09:00) > >Title : Re: Re: RE: IoTivity v1.0.0 criteria proposal > > > >Dear Juneyoung > > > > We have discussed about QA Criteria for IoTivity V1.0 in today's QA >CC. > > I attached the result > > > > Next, in case of test case type , Samsung's test case is a kinds of >API Test Case > > and Intel's test case is a kinds of integration test case. > > it means Intel already perform integration test in base layer. > > > > we also have plan to perform service Layer's integration test after >primitive service API is defined > > this issue is also discussed in QA CC but some isssues are not fixed >yet > > > > > >Best Regrads > >Soonhwang Choi > > > >------- Original Message ------- > >Sender : JuneYong Young<juney at samsung.com<mailto:juney at samsung.com>> >S6/Principal Engineer/IoT Solution Lab./Samsung Electronics > >Date : 2015-01-10 18:32 (GMT+09:00) > >Title : Re: RE: IoTivity v1.0.0 criteria proposal > > > >George, > > > >Please refer to my comments in [June] below. > > > >Regards > >June > > >June Yong Young > >Principal Engineer >Web & Convergence Team, Software R&D Center Samsung Electronics Co.,Ltd. > >T: +82-31-301-6107, M: +82-10-9530-6107 >E-mail :juney at samsung.com<mailto:juney at samsung.com> > > > >------- Original Message ------- > >Sender : Bowden, >George<george.bowden at intel.com<mailto:george.bowden at intel.com>> > >Date : 2015-01-08 23:44 (GMT+09:00) > >Title : RE: IoTivity v1.0.0 criteria proposal > > >Hi June Yong, >Thank you for initiating this conversation. >I generally agree with your basic concept for v1.0.0 and would like to >add the following comments: > >1. I don?t believe that backward compatibility between v0.9.0 and >v1.0.0 should be an absolute requirement. I do believe it is a ?nice to >have? if possible, but not at the cost of adding significant complexity > > that would need to be carried forward for future 1.x releases. I >do believe that v1.0.0 should implement the pieces that set the >foundation for what other v1.x should be compatible with (e.g., v1.1.x ? >v1.9.x should all be backward compatible with v1.0.0). > > I believe we still need to decide if v2.x releases should be >backward compatible with v1.x releases, but I suspect that it may not be >the case that they are. > > -> Correct, the backward compatibiliy check result I meant was to check >if further implementation is required for v1.0.0 release based on current >v0.9.0 base. Those implementations should be added in v1.0.0 if any. > > >2. I do not understand what it means for QA to both ?Run v1.0.0 full >test cases? and ?API test case only?. I look to Soonhwang to help better >define the set and type of test cases to be run. While I understand why >we may choose to not fully execute integration tests at this time, I do >think we should complete at least a minimal set of integration QA on the >release before calling it v1.0.0. > >-> [June] This issue will be more clear when SoonHwang sort out the >-> criteria, but Integration QA test stil requires further discussioin >-> among member company QA teams about how to integrate test cases, > > how to manage R&R for each member company, and what kind >of QA tools to be used, and so on. So, there is a possiblity that >Integration test discussion will not be finalized before v1.0.0 > > if v1.0.0 schedule is determined not too far. > > > >3. In addition to executing tests to help measure the quality of the >release, I believe that we need to resolve all of the critical/P1 defects >and majority of the high/P2 defects found during test before releasing >v1.0.0. > > We?ve yet to collectively define what we mean by ?critical? and >?high? but I generally mean that ?critical? defects are ones that prevent >IoTivity from being usable (e.g., crashes under basic conditions), > > expose IoTivity or its contributors to financial or legal >liabilities, or cause negative impact to the IoTivity brand image. >?high? severity defects could be considered as release reliability >defects ? with too many of them remaining, > > the overall release may be considered unusable (these are the type >of defects we?re often compelled to describe in release notes if left >unresolved). > >-> [June] These issues will be more clear in SoonHang's proposal in >discussion with each QA lead. > > > > >4. We may need a final ISG decision after receiving input from OIC >Marketing stating if enough IoTivity features have been implemented to >call the release v1.0.0 when considering the state of the OIC standards >specification and competing IoT implementations. > >-> [June] Yes, we will need a final ISG decision, but at first my glance, >adding more features Marketing will want to add in v1.0.0 is slightly >different from my intention of basic concept "0.9.0 base + >incomplete/missing features". > > We need to talk later on. > > >I?ll re-review the feature list but I don?t believe there are major >?customer visible? features missing, but I do believe there are a lot of >cleanup work items remaining at this time (e.g., fixing readmes, >directory structure changes, unit test integration with build, etc.). > >Finally, is there a reason why we are not using a mailing list for this >discussion? > >-- George > > >From: SOON HWANG CHOI [mailto:soonhwang.choi at samsung.com] >Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 3:31 AM >To: ???; Tung, Mark Y; Mirani, Jawid >Cc: Skarpness, Mark; Bowden, George; Lankswert, Patrick; >felix.freimann at mediatek.com<mailto:felix.freimann at mediatek.com>; >Agerstam, Mats G; ???; ???; ??; ???; ???; ???; ???; ???; ???; ???; ???; >???; Subramaniam, Ravi; Moses, Jaideep >Subject: RE: IoTivity v1.0.0 criteria proposal > > >Dear June Yong > > > > We will provide feedback for Action Item #4 after discussion with >Intel QA Team. > > > >Dear Mirani and Mark. > > > > Let's discuss the issue of Acion Item #4 in Next week's CC (1/15) > > We will provide our side opinion earler. > > > >Regards > >Soonhwang Choi > > > > > > > >------- Original Message ------- > >Sender : ???<juney at samsung.com<mailto:juney at samsung.com>> S6(??)/??/IoT >Solution Lab(S/W??)/???? > >Date : 2015-01-08 19:15 (GMT+09:00) > >Title : IoTivity v1.0.0 criteria proposal > > > >Hello George, Felix, > > > >This is my personal thought on v1.0.0 criteria. > >Could you provide your opinion per my proposal? >Basic concept on V1.0.0 > >Same v0.9.0 feature base > >? > >Apply only missing features & incompleted items of v0.9.0 > >? > >Apply the additional/revised items(APIs, code structure, etc) to maintain >backward compatibility > >? > >Merge Master/CA/CM branch onto one branch(master repo.) > >? > >v1.0.0 QA Criteria > . Run v1.0.0 full test cases > . API test case only > (Integration QA test case to start since M3) > >? > > > > >Based on the assumption that the proposal is satisfactory, the following >action items will be required afterwards > >Please refer to the attached. > >First of all, I have sorted out the features that were supported on >v0.9.0 and expected additional features to be supported > >on v1.0.0 on Samsung side in the attached. > >Could you add the list of the features to be supported on v1.0.0 in the >attached if any on your side? > > >Action Items > >1 > >George & Felix to give opinion about v1.0.0 concept (~1/9) > >? > >2 > >George & Felix to provide the additional features that will be on v1.0.0 >if any (~1/9) > >? > >3 > >George & Felix to provide the backward compatibility review result (~1/16 >or earlier) > >? > >4 > >SoonHwang to discuss with QA lead for each company to confirm (~1/16 or >earlier) > . if QA criteria on v1.0.0 is ok > . whether or not the test cases can be integrated > . when test cases will be completed > >? > >5 > >QA Leads to provide v1.0.0 QA test cases to Project Leads (Architects, >Maintainers, Functions Leads) (TBD) > >? > >6 > >June to propose v1.0.0 criteria to ISG (TBD) > >? > >7 > >Project Leads to confirm v1.0.0 schedule (TBD) > >? > > > > >SoonHwang, > >Would you please discuss an action item #4 with QA lead for each company >and let us know your feedback. > > > > > >--------------------------------- > > >Features on V0.9.0 vs V1.0.0 > > >Features > >V0.9.0 > >V1.0.0 > >V1.x(M3) > >Ownership > >Feature > >Detail > >Remark > >12-30 > >TBD > >Schedule > >March > >Company > >Notification >Manager > >Lite Device Resource Discovery > >Investigating on how to revise Noti. Mgmt. on Base APIs. > >N > >TBD > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Formation of the Virtual Resource for Lite Device > >N > >TBD > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Resource proxy instead of Lite Device using Virtual Resource > >N > >TBD > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Soft Sensor >Manager > >?Physical Sensor Data Listening > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Developing template for Sensor Fusion as a library andDeploying/Executing >the library > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Query-based Sensor Data Request > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Reference soft sensors > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >? > >Bridging in a local network using Pluggable Protocols Converters > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Protocol Plugin > >C/C++ and Java Support for Multi Platforms > - Linux, Android, Tizen > >? > >N > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Hue Plugin with C/C++ > - On/Off, Change Color, Dimming > >? > >N > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >MQTT Plugin with C/C++ > - FAN On/Off > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Gear Plugin with Java(Android only) > - Notification to Gear > - User Activity Event Receiving from Gear > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Belkin Wemo Plugin with Java(Android only) > - Motion Sensor, Switch On/Off > >? > >N > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Things Manager > >Find appropriate resources for the specific group > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Find/Create/Delete a group > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Join/Leave > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Let the other devices to join the specific group > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Get the information of all groups > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Check presence information of group (member resource's >connectivity/resource change) > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Take a single action on a group to affect all member resources (Group >Action using ActionSet) > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >CRUD function for ActionSet > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Send configuration/diagnostics command to multiple things > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Get the parameter list of configuration feature > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Get the functionality list of diagnostics feature > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Control Manager > >Provides framework and services to implement a Controller with Smart Home >Data Model > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Provides RESTful Resource Request/Response handler with Device Discovery >and Subscription/Notification Manager > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Provides framework and services to implement a Controlee > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Provides RESTful Resource request Handler to perform the action requested >by the Controllers > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Provides discovery of the devices and resources a device hosts > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Handles subscription requests from the Controllers > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Provides HTTP based REST framework for Control Manager > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Android Support > >Supports client side Java APIs for Android > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >MediaTek > >Requires Android NDK version 10 or later > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >MediaTek > >Requires Android SDK API level 19 > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >MediaTek > >Sample applications demonstrate Java SDK > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >MediaTek > >Android API refactoring and completion (Server API Support) > >? > >N > >Y > >? > >Y > >MediaTek > >Security > >Bootstrapping Channel Protection API (Na?ve, ECDH) > >Review in progress > >N > >TBD > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Connectivity Abstraction > >This feature integrates the resource model (aka Resource Introspection - >RI) and Connectivity Abstraction (CA) layers. > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Intel > >The CA layer provides abstraction to the RI layer from adaptors and >transport protocols. This release showcases the integration of RI and CA >layers over multiple heterogeneous adaptors (Wi-Fi and Ethernet). > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Features existing with RI and CA integration- Discovery (multicast and >unicast), GET, PUT, POST, DELETE and Observe and Active Discovery (aka >presence). > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Supports both secure and non-secure resources. > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >The user has the option to include/exclude the CA layer using compiler >flag CA_INT. In the current code by default the CA_INT compiler flag is >included and hence the CA layer is included. > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Intel > >Some of the C/C++ APIs have changed for CA integration. These changes are >included in the CA_INT flag in the header files. > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Intel > >During resource discovery it is possible for the same resource to be >discovered on multiple adaptors. To resolve this a Server Identifier >(SID) is included in the resource discovery response. > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Intel > >The discovery response also includes the adaptor type on which the >resource was discovered (Ethernet, Wi-Fi, etc) and this information is >passed to the application. If the same resource is reachable via multiple >adaptors, i.e. it has been discovered on multiple connectivity types, the >application must specify which interface to use for subsequent >GET/PUT/POST/DELETE/observe operations. > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Unicast discovery uses port 5683; multicast discovery uses port 5298 > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Sample application demonstrating CA integration: >- ocserver and occlient in C sample. >- simpleserver and simpleclient C++ sample. >- presenceserver C31and presenceclient C++ sample. > >? > >Y > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >BLE Support > >? > >N > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >?Support for HIGH QoS. > >? > >N > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >slow response. > >? > >N > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Device discovery works on a single adaptor. > >? > >N > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Only unicast presence supported. > >? > >N > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >CA integration has been tested only on Ubuntu. > >? > >N > >Y > >? > >Y > >Samsung > >Discovery and Connectivity > >CoAP model- IoTvity supports information exchange and control based on >the messaging/CoAP model. IoTivity also manages radio connections between >devices (Wi-Fi, LAN) and across any available transport, whether it?s >device-to-device or across the same network > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >Discovery- This feature provides discovery mechanisms for finding >resources in proximity. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >Device Discovery- This feature provides a mechanism to find devices based >on specific device-level attributes. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >Active Discovery- This feature provides presence notifications based on >a) a resource coming online or b) a change in a resource's properties or >c) a resource going offline. It allows a client to subscribe/unsubscribe >(unicast or multicast) for presence notifications. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >Resource Management > >Resource model operations- IoTivity supports fundamental resource model >based operations such as GET, PUT, POST, DELETE apart from Observations >and its notifications. Observe notifications can be sent to all clients >or to a specific set of clients. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >Entity Handler support- This allows a server app developer to handle >incoming client requests and respond after processing the requests. A >default device entity handler is also supported to handle a request that >does not match the existing registered resource. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >Header Options support- This feature allows the client to send custom >header options to the server and vice-versa. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >QoS support- This feature allows the app developer to choose the quality >of service which currently translates to non-confirmable (LOW_QoS) and >confirmable (HIGH_QoS) in CoAP. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >SDK- The SDK abstracts all the OS APIs for radio connections into simpler >APIs. SDK provides APIs for platform initialization >(Client/Server/Client-Server mode in In-Proc model), discovery of >resources, discovery of devices, registration/creation of resources and >resource model operations. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >Collection- This feature provides a root resource to point to other >resources. This features includes operations on default, linklist and >batch interfaces on a collection resource. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >JSON format- IoTivity uses JSON data format with JSON serialization and >de-serialization in C++ SDK layer. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >Slow response- This feature allows a server application to indicate 'slow >response' to a client on an incoming request. This enables the server >process the request, then send a response at a later time. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >Security- This feature provides security that allows app developers to >create secure resources and communicate with resources in a secured >channel. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >Tizen Support > >IoTivity project build supported on Tizen 2.3 and 3.0 (both on IA and ARM >version) > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >No new specific APIs for Tizen; Tizen development support and build >process provided in "Readme.scons.txt" > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >Yocto Support > >meta-oic software layer for Yocto separately hosted on >git.yoctoproject.org. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >Contains recipes to build the IoTivity framework and SDK for Yocto based >embedded targets. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >Can utilize Yocto provisioned infrastructure to construct target >toolchains to cross-compile IoTivity applications for that target. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >Tested successfully on Intel Edison and MinnowBoard MAX platforms. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >Currently supports the resource layer (runtimes and applications) of the >IoTivity stack. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >OICSensorBoard provides sample IoTivity application for the Intel Edison >Platform. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >Demonstrates IoTivity Server capabilities on the Edison through the >integration of an add-on breadboard that hosts temperature, ambient light >and LED resources. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >Client-server functionality successfully tested by building server using >Yocto toolchain for Edison and client for Ubuntu. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >Fully documented connection diagram of sensors to Edison, build >configuration, supported IoTivity interfaces and methods, and >client/server. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >Scons Support > >SCons provides cross-platform build tool. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > >IoTivity project can be built on Linux, Windows, MAC OSX for various >OS(Linux, Tizen, Android, Arduino, Windos, MAC OSX, iOS). >SCons readme file available at parent folder 'iotivity'. > >? > >? > >? > >? > >? > >Intel > > > >June Yong Young > >Principal Engineer >Web & Convergence Team, Software R&D Center Samsung Electronics Co.,Ltd. > >T: +82-31-301-6107, M: +82-10-9530-6107 >E-mail :juney at samsung.com<mailto:juney at samsung.com> > > > > > > > Choi, Soon Hwang > Senior Engineer / Ph. D. > Software Engineering Lab (SE Lab) > Digital Media & Communication R&D Center > > SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,LTD > > AnyCall +82-10-7311-0206 > e-mail soonhwang.choi at samsung.com<mailto:soonhwang.choi at samsung.com> > > > > > > > > > > Choi, Soon Hwang > Senior Engineer / Ph. D. > Software Engineering Lab (SE Lab) > Digital Media & Communication R&D Center > > SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,LTD > > AnyCall +82-10-7311-0206 > e-mail soonhwang.choi at samsung.com<mailto:soonhwang.choi at samsung.com> > > > > > > >[cid:image001.gif at 01D03179.22DDF600] > >[http://ext.samsung.net/mailcheck/SeenTimeChecker?do=6db27cebcd8822fb77117 >ef89cc77e93dc8928a02cb65e9187dfe03c47d8dbcb08c5ce1bd480a15cd4a87a1fb2ad965 >04bea3c1765014a1208cece8541bc14eacf878f9a26ce15a0] > >
