> I don't think we can make any decisions on CoAP until DTLS support is there.
> It may influence what the CoAP API looks like.
Thiago, could you, please, clarify this?
They model their Coap client after QNAM and related classes (like
QNetworkRequest/Reply pair).
As I understand it now - DTLS or not does not affect this API much - they can
later
add QSslConfiguration/sslErrors signal(s) in their API. Am I missing something?
>From client side QDtlsConnection I'm working on is not very different
from QSslSocket/QUdpSocket as we have them in Qt now (though it's none of them
exactly).
Best regards,
Timur.
________________________________
From: Development <[email protected]>
on behalf of Thiago Macieira <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 5:55:41 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Development] QtCoap: QNAM-like API or not
On Sunday, 14 January 2018 09:49:48 PST Adrien LERAVAT wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> Before feature freeze, we wanted to challenge the current API for the CoAP
> module.
I don't think we can make any decisions on CoAP until DTLS support is there.
It may influence what the CoAP API looks like.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
