Hi Thiago, I got your idea, "If the developer does not specify the adapter type, you want to use the priority list." OK. Then, we have three connectivity as of now. Could you share the priority of your mind? Order as like 1)WiFi 2)BT 3)BLE ?
BR, Uze Choi -----Original Message----- From: Thiago Macieira [mailto:thiago.macie...@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 12:17 AM To: ???(Uze Choi) Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: Re: [dev] IPv6 changes to IoTivity On Wednesday 25 March 2015 19:26:16 ??? wrote: > Hi Thiago, Hi Uze > I?m not sure whether we are communicating correctly, so let me clarify > for your response. > > If you feel there is any discrepancy from my understanding, let me know. > > > So I agree with Uze's proposal: > > You agree with my opinion that any smart connectivity selection logic > is not proper. > > > > 1) Framework has the priority for adaptor and If Application does > > > not specify, then follow the framework policy else follow the specified > > > one. I agree that it may not be enough and I agree that the application may need to specify which adapter to send on. If the application does not make that decision, then the framework will choose a suitable default. The important thing is that the application developer should not have to write anything if the default is fine. > > I don't think we need to do this part: > This is the same idea to your ?priority list? concept, but You don?t > think this is required. > > > > 2) Framework monitors data transmission rate and designate the > > > appropriate adaptor. > > > I don't think we need to monitor transmission and loss rates. That's > > a job for the lower below OIC -- the reliable delivery. > > The purpose of monitoring transmission is to decide the appropriate > connectivity in some time frame and not for the reliable delivery. I didn't read these as the same. I don't think we need to monitor transmission rates. The framework should be able to have a priority list without having to monitor anything. We don't need the complexity of monitoring data rates and I don't think that we could write a good one even if we wanted to. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
