Marton, Thanks for bringing this up, I'm +1, too!
Cheers, Arpad On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 5:05 PM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > Marton > > I strongly support this. The path needs to be maintainable and keeping > things around that dont get the love create many challenges. > > Thanks > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 7:48 AM Marton Szasz <sza...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi community, > > > > We're considering to drop certain features from MiNiFi C++ that seem to > > be unused, and not worth maintaining. If you would like to keep some of > > them, please share your opinion and your use case for them! > > > > To be removed: > > 1. CoAP C2: not used anywhere as far as I'm aware, and not well > > maintained. C2 over HTTP would remain unchanged. > > 2. nanofi: This was an initiative around 2019-2020 to rewrite about half > > of minifi in a C library form for integration to other software. There > > was no development on it since early 2020, and I'm not aware of any > users. > > 3. pcap extension: not well tested or maintained, probably not used by > > anyone > > 4. usb camera extension: same as pcap > > 5. sensors extension: same as pcap > > 6. openwsman extension: same as pcap > > > > As we progress towards the new major versions, now is our best > > opportunity to remove unused code, so the codebase becomes easier to > > maintain, and this hopefully unlocks new feature possibilities. Let me > > know what you think! > > > > Thanks, > > Marton > > > > >
