Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [hono-dev] Device online status API for Command And Control

Ok, continued on issue #535 [1]

[1] https://github.com/eclipse/hono/issues/535

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Frank Karsten (INST/ECS4) <Karsten.Frank2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Jens,

 

this matches very well what I thought in parallel (which is good!).

See my comments inline.

 

I propose to continue the discussion of the details in the issue #535 and/or the PR #537, so we only

discuss high-level thoughts here on the mailing list. WDYT?

 

Cheers

Karsten

 

 

    > Hi,

    > I drafted up a few thoughts around that a few minutes ago :) Here is what I came up with:

    >

    > ---

    > Address: notification/$tenant_id

 

+1 - this should be the address! Already used in the provided sequence diagram.

 

    >

    >  -> "at least once"

    >

    > Properties:

    >     content-type = "hono/connectivity"

 

"hono/notification"

 

    >     content-encoding = "application/json"

    >     subject = "connected" | "disconnected"

 

"connect" | "disconnect"

 

    > Application Properties

    >     device_id = <device id>

    >     tenant_id = <tenant_id>

 

We have the tenant already in the address and with other APIs defined on a tenant base, we require only the device_id to be avail

as application property.

So: I would skip the tenant_id here.

 

 

    >

    > Payload format (JSON):

    > {

    >     "device-id": <device-id>,

    >     "message": <optional, plain text (error) message>

    > }

    > ---

    > The idea behind that was, that we can use this address for additional (future) events as well. Right now we have two, maybe someone else wants to add custom ones as well.

 

+1 : had the same idea :-)

 

    >

    > I do like option b), so I changed my proposal to use that as an address. I originally had "connectivity", but "notification" follows the idea of allowing future additions in that area.

 

Fine! So let's stick to "notification" from now on.

 

    > Thinking about the QoS, I guess you are right and the sender of such notifications would probably never act on a "failure". Except maybe writing a log entry. The question to me is: If we would queue those messages in a broker, would QoS 0 make any difference?

    > Cheers

    > Jens

    >

 


_______________________________________________
hono-dev mailing list
hono-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/hono-dev




--
Jens Reimann
Senior Software Engineer / EMEA ENG Middleware
Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 14
85630 Grasbrunn
Germany
phone: +49 89 2050 71286
_____________________________________________________________________________

Red Hat GmbH, www.de.redhat.com,
Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Paul Argiry, Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill

Back to the top