On Thu, Aug 9, 2018, 10:57 PM Ondrej Tomcik <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018, 4:04 PM Ondrej Tomcik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > ... > >> It's the core requirement to observe everything. >> > According to whom? It's certainly not a core requirement for me. > >> Otherwise you can't provide up-to-date resource shadow, what leads to - >> forward every GET to the device. And this does not make sense. >> > The ability to choose which resources to observe makes perfect sense to me. > > Hmm, now I am not sure if both of you didn't read it properly, or it's not > explained well. > > One more time. To optimize number of requests (not act just as a proxy and > forward each request to the device) you need to have consistent and up to > date representation in the OCF Native Cloud. > That's true. But who said "optimize number of requests" is a requirement? More to the point I think you mean "minimize", not optimize. Optimization always depends on the specific situation; it's also context-dependent. There are always trade-offs; what's optimal for OCF Cloud is not necessarily optimal for my sensor network. E.g. I do not need to "observe" my temp sensors. In fact I might not want my sensor to take a reading unless I explicitly ask for it. Requiring observation in such a scenario is not an optimization, just the opposite, imho. In fact it simply would not work in your scenario. My sensor only takes a reading when it receives a GET, but that never happens since my GET is intercepted by your cloud thingie. Furthermore it is not a requirement that every server support observation, afaik. Doesn't your design places a new burden on servers? Gregg -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#9855): https://lists.iotivity.org/g/iotivity-dev/message/9855 Mute This Topic: https://lists.iotivity.org/mt/24238274/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.iotivity.org/g/iotivity-dev/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
