Ok, figured it was something like that. Thanks. On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Morrow, Joseph L < joseph.l.mor...@intel.com> wrote:
> 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
