*"it was supposed to be **the new, official API layer."*
Is it still the plan? What will happen to resource encapsulation and the
smarthome API proposal?
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> On Friday, 18 August 2017 14:50:43 PDT Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> > even better: IPC
On Friday, 18 August 2017 14:50:43 PDT Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> even better: IPCA. one of infinitely many c++ wrappers on csdk. why on
> earth is it in master?
Because IPCA wasn't supposed to be a vendor extension, it was supposed to be
the new, official API layer. The current csdk would become
On Aug 18, 2017 4:29 PM, "Gregg Reynolds" wrote:
On Aug 18, 2017 3:55 PM, "Mats Wichmann" wrote:
On 08/18/2017 02:40 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Friday, 18 August 2017 13:22:18 PDT Gregg Reynolds wrote:
>> iotivity, the project, or iotivity, the ocf implementation?
>
> I meant the code th
On Aug 18, 2017 3:55 PM, "Mats Wichmann" wrote:
On 08/18/2017 02:40 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Friday, 18 August 2017 13:22:18 PDT Gregg Reynolds wrote:
>> iotivity, the project, or iotivity, the ocf implementation?
>
> I meant the code that the IoTivity Project releases as "IoTivity".
>
> T
al Message-
From: iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org
[mailto:iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Mats Wichmann
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 1:56 PM
To: iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org
Subject: Re: [dev] direct pairing
On 08/18/2017 02:40 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On
On 08/18/2017 02:40 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Friday, 18 August 2017 13:22:18 PDT Gregg Reynolds wrote:
>> iotivity, the project, or iotivity, the ocf implementation?
>
> I meant the code that the IoTivity Project releases as "IoTivity".
>
> That happens to be OCF's reference implementation
On Friday, 18 August 2017 13:22:18 PDT Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> iotivity, the project, or iotivity, the ocf implementation?
I meant the code that the IoTivity Project releases as "IoTivity".
That happens to be OCF's reference implementation.
> my 2 cents: the project is an appropriate home for ve
On Aug 18, 2017 3:07 PM, "Thiago Macieira"
wrote:
On Friday, 18 August 2017 12:03:01 PDT Dave Thaler via iotivity-dev wrote:
> “should not vendor-specific features go in vendor-specific
> forks or libs? otherwise we end up with a kitchen sink o' cruft.”
>
> Completely agree with th
On Friday, 18 August 2017 12:03:01 PDT Dave Thaler via iotivity-dev wrote:
> “should not vendor-specific features go in vendor-specific
> forks or libs? otherwise we end up with a kitchen sink o' cruft.”
>
> Completely agree with that. Vendor-specific features should never be code
view.
Dave
From: iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org
[mailto:iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Reynolds
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 11:54 AM
To: Heldt-Sheller, Nathan
Cc: iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org
Subject: Re: [dev] direct pairing
On Aug 18, 2017 12:
e that helps,
Nathan
*From:* iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org [mailto:
iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org] *On Behalf Of *Nash, George
*Sent:* Thursday, August 17, 2017 5:03 PM
*To:* Gregg Reynolds ; iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org
*Subject:* Re: [dev] direct pairing
I would lik
the 1.3.1 RC
tags start coming in (~2 weeks from now).
Thanks,
Nathan
-Original Message-
From: iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org
[mailto:iotivity-dev-boun...@lists.iotivity.org] On Behalf Of Mats Wichmann
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 10:48 AM
To: iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org
S
On 08/18/2017 11:20 AM, Heldt-Sheller, Nathan wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> Direct Pairing wasn’t ever a Specified feature; it was a Vendor Defined
> feature that shouldn’t have been compiled in by default in the first place
> (all vendor-defined features should be conditionally compiled out by defaul
: Re: [dev] direct pairing
I would like to know what is the process for deprecation. On past projects that
I have worked on we had a clearly specified deprecation process. Once a feature
or API was deprecated it was marked deprecated in the code using paragmas,
markup, or whatever means was needed
I would like to know what is the process for deprecation. On past projects that
I have worked on we had a clearly specified deprecation process. Once a feature
or API was deprecated it was marked deprecated in the code using paragmas,
markup, or whatever means was needed. If it tells the compil
15 matches
Mail list logo
