Hi Gregg, I believe this question has been asked here before. I was not a part of the contribution or original conversation, but what I do recall is there were arguments that the CA Layer should be able to stand on its own should another IoTivity implementation want to use it. So the CA Layer was effectively being treated as its own project. I won't say I agree or disagree, but that was the argument at the time.
Thanks. Joey Morrow > On Aug 27, 2017, at 12:05 PM, Gregg Reynolds <d...@mobileink.com> wrote: > > iotivity contains some redundant data structures; for example, OCDevAddr and > CAEndpoint_t, which are supposed to be kept in sync. there are others. > > this mystifies me a little bit. is there a solid engineering reason for > maintaining 2 identical structs rather than sharing a single struct? > > thanks, g > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev _______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
