On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:00 AM, Patrik Flykt <patrik.fl...@linux.intel.com>

>         Hi,
> On Mon, 2015-10-12 at 21:46 -0700, Naveen Singh wrote:
> > In my previous email when I meant *"**User could be initiating scan" *I
> > actually meant "*Application could be initiating scan".*
> Well, don't. Now the responsibility of correct behavior is taken away
> from ConnMan and placed on the application. What does the application
> know about network connectivity that ConnMan doesn't?
There is nothing that application knows that connman does not know.  In
fact application gets to know through
connman that connection did not go through. The way application gets
connected back is to initiate a scan and hoping that
one of these scan would find the AP (or services) and then run autoconnect
would trigger and get device connected. But in this case run autoconnect
not attempt connection because service state was left to failure.

> If some other entity is requesting sudden irregular scans, it is a sign
> for ConnMan that fresh information is needed; for sure the networks
> available are not the ones desired and therefore there is even less
> point in trying to connect to a service that has already failed...
It is not a irregular scan. It is a scan attempt to get connected w/o any
user intervention.

> Cheers,
>         Patrik
> _______________________________________________
> connman mailing list
> connman@connman.net
> https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
connman mailing list

Reply via email to