Re: [cf-dev] Simultaneous DTLS device registration performance

["Kovatsch Matthias" <kovatsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all

> This sounds very promising. IMHO the whole Californium stack could be greatly
> improved by following a reactive approach. However, I am also afraid that this
> would entail quite some work (basically a re-write from scratch). I do see a
> chance for leveraging this approach in Scandium, however, in the scope of PSK
> key lookup as well as session state restoration (during abbreviated handshake).

I just want to point out that the published Californium architecture is beyond the widely-known "reactive approach", meaning that we improved on the state of the art by looking at architectures that take more into account than just non-blocking slices of code.

I know that this does not help, if there is no one maintaining this architecture and no one to extend it to also include the Scandium part. So feel free to refactor it to a well-known, maintainable pattern! Just be aware what this means in total...

Best wishes
Matthias

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Schmid Christian (INST/ECS4)
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2017 17:35
> To: Californium (Cf) developer discussions <cf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [cf-dev] Simultaneous DTLS device registration performance
> 
> Hi Kai,
> 
> Thanks for the very fast reply and offer of further support.
> The JavaRX framework looks very promising.
> We already hacked a small 'quick and dirty' prototype to evaluate the feasibility.
> I will polish it a bit and share it for further discussion next week.
> 
> Thanks
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> > This sounds very promising. IMHO the whole Californium stack could be
> greatly improved by following a reactive approach. However, I am also afraid
> that this would entail quite some work (basically a re-write from scratch). I do
> see a chance for leveraging this approach in Scandium, however, in the scope of
> PSK key lookup as well as session state restoration (during abbreviated
> handshake).
> 
> We need to keep in mind, though, that we are on Java 7, i.e. any reactive
> framework we would want to employ should work with that version and should
> ideally also be available on Android.
> 
> I have taken a short glance at JavaRX for that purpose and I think that it might
> be worth a deeper look. It would be great if you would like to start doing some
> work in that direction. I can give you some pointers regarding where to start
> digging and support you during the course of it. 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