[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cf-dev] CoAP-over-TCP RFC Draft 4
|
Hi Joe,
I have taken a look at the latest coap-over-tcp draft. See my comments below ...
On Fr, 2016-09-30 at 00:10 +0000, Joe Magerramov wrote:
> We have two ways to support new message type.
>
> First method, introduce new method (receiveSignalMessage / sendSignalMessage)
> on every interface (stack, interceptors, layer). Have UDP stack ignore those
> message type (we already have a precedent for that - TCP stack ignores
> EmptyMessages). Modifying interfaces is backwards incompatible, but these are
> internal interfaces, so shouldn't impact users.
>
I agree, we shouldn't run into a problem when we extend the existing Layer
interface with methods for the signal messages.
> Second method, is to bite the bullet, and fork CoapEndpoint (and all
> accompanying classes) between UDP and TCP stacks. This would result a slightly
> cleaner implementation for each stack, but would result in fair bit of of
> duplication.
>
> My preference is towards method #1 - but wanted to hear others' opinions. I'm
> not a big fan of #2, since if we're doing that might as well fork the entire
> library.
>
> Thoughts?
>
I tend to agree with you that option 1 is preferable. AFAIC it better matches our
overall architectural approach taken so far. The fact that the coap-over-tcp spec
seems to try to keep as close as possible to the messaging model defined by CoAP
also supports this IMHO.
Do you want to take a shot at it? What does that mean for the current
implementation? Do you think it has been "invalidated" by the latest draft
version being available or do you think that the current implementation (based on
draft-2, right?) has still value for "production". I am asking because we had
been talking about creating a 1.1 release that would include the TCP support you
contributed and I now wonder whether the advent of draft-4 now somewhat takes the
pressure out of it, i.e. whether we would like to postpone that til we have
draft-4 implemented.
WDYT?
> _______________________________________________
> cf-dev mailing list
> cf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
> this list, visit
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev
