Yes, exactly.
Sent from my iPad
> On 22.04.2015, at 20:16, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
>{"0":"/a/light","1":["123":true,"extensionname":"#123456"]}
>
> Is that what you'd propose?
Just continue doing these with strings? UUIDs of course also work, but may be
less useful in debugging as wireshark won't know them for the custom case.
Sent from my iPad
> On 22.04.2015, at 20:03, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> How would you propose for custom extensions?
Hi,
Carsten Bormann writes:
> Just continue doing these with strings? UUIDs of course also work, but
> may be less useful in debugging as wireshark won't know them for the
> custom case.
Yes, this would work.
What I had in mind is having different ranges (for example), 0 - 65355,
reserved for
Hi Thiago,
Thiago Macieira writes:
> As promised, I've written a proposal for CBOR. See more details and rationale
> in https://jira.iotivity.org/browse/IOT-449.
>
> Summary: the proposal is to
> * update documentation, variable names and comments that assumed that JSON
> would be the only type
On Wednesday 22 April 2015 20:06:57 Carsten Bormann wrote:
> Just continue doing these with strings? UUIDs of course also work, but may
> be less useful in debugging as wireshark won't know them for the custom
> case.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On 22.04.2015, at 20:03, Thiago Macieira
> > wrote
On Wednesday 22 April 2015 14:20:16 Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> Just wondering if something similar to what GATT does would work, using
> binary identifiers instead of string identifiers, emulating what GATT
> does with 16-bit, 32-bits and 128-bit UUIDs for characteristic value
> types.
>
> So t
> -Original Message-
> From: iotivity-dev-bounces at lists.iotivity.org [mailto:iotivity-dev-
> bounces at lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 12:31 AM
> To: Junghyun Oh
> Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
> Subject: Re
On Sunday 12 April 2015 15:57:56 Junghyun Oh wrote:
> Hi Thiago,
>
> In summary, by adapting the ?CBOR? .. (please correct me if i?m wrong)
>
> 1. Stack size will be bit more minimized by removing the ?cjson? lib. out
> of the Stack.
Hi Jay
Yes, that is correct.
> 2. The MAXIMUM size of t
Hi Thiago,
In summary, by adapting the ?CBOR? .. (please correct me if i?m wrong)
1. Stack size will be bit more minimized by removing the ?cjson? lib. out of
the Stack.
2. The MAXIMUM size of the payload might be lengthen.
3. The CBOR en/decoding might influence the performance.
4. Only
As promised, I've written a proposal for CBOR. See more details and rationale
in https://jira.iotivity.org/browse/IOT-449.
Summary: the proposal is to
* update documentation, variable names and comments that assumed that JSON
would be the only type of payload
* the OIC protocol be modified so t
10 matches
Mail list logo
