[dev] Control Manager

2015-01-22 Thread Felix Freimann
I agree with Thiago, John and others. If the code is generated by some tool then that tool should also become "public and free" (option #1). Option #2 would be the next preferred option. I would not support option 3. BTW, does the code generator run on a Linux based platform (e.g. Ubuntu, .

[dev] IoTivity v1.0.0 criteria proposal

2015-01-22 Thread Tung, Mark Y
- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ATT29328 1.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 24076 bytes Desc: ATT29328 1.jpg URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20150122/e738517d/attachment.jpg>

[dev] Control Manager

2015-01-22 Thread Light, John J
Another option is a bit more involved, but it might be the best available. Generators are good for early testable code. Done. If we go in the direction of option 2, we should take it one step further and reorganize the code to be more maintainable. Such a process has many characteristics of r

[dev] Control Manager

2015-01-22 Thread Keane, Erich
I agree with John. If at all possible, #1 would be awesome, and it would be worth exploring what it would take to make it public/free. #2 is definitely something I would be OK with, but if the generated code isn't very maintainable, we might be better off just scrapping the code if we can't do

[dev] Control Manager

2015-01-22 Thread Light, John J
" make the generator public and free software " I think saying why the generator can't be made "public and free" would be a valuable contribution to this discussion. That knowledge will impact options 1 and 3. " No one will ever regenerate using the closed tool again." I've seen unmodifiable

[dev] Control Manager

2015-01-22 Thread Lankswert, Patrick
Manager Louisville, KY, USA -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20150122/4a08ad8e/attachment.html>

[dev] Control Manager

2015-01-22 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Thursday 22 January 2015 10:55:37 Keane, Erich wrote: > I agree with John. If at all possible, #1 would be awesome, and it > would be worth exploring what it would take to make it public/free. > > #2 is definitely something I would be OK with, but if the generated code > isn't very maintaina

[dev] IoTivity v1.0.0 criteria proposal

2015-01-22 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Thursday 22 January 2015 11:20:35 you wrote: > Hi Thiago, > > Please refer to my comments below. Hi June and others Note: I've trimmed the Cc list and moved everyone to BCC. If you haven't subscribed to iotivity-dev, you won't get replies. Subscribe now, please. If you have problems subscr

[dev] IoTivity v1.0.0 criteria proposal

2015-01-22 Thread 양준용
An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20150122/4ddd2ac6/attachment.html> -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 201501222020464_PYMC4CBB.gif Type: image/gif Size: 13168 bytes Des

[dev] Control Manager

2015-01-22 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Thursday 22 January 2015 16:55:03 Lankswert, Patrick wrote: > A large portion of the code was created by a code generator. The code > generator currently cannot be released as open source. The concern a number > of people have is that this code base cannot be modified by the open source > commun

[dev] notification manager in master branch

2015-01-22 Thread Ronny Peng (彭陽洪)
ment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20150122/ff1805a4/attachment.html>