On Wednesday 22 July 2015 05:05:22 ??? wrote: > We are not sure why you are saying unwise and unnecessary. > It??s up to the API user to use any internal APIs. > Currently Routing manager requires the GertNetworkInformation to know the > available networks and route the packet.
Can you describe why the code requires the information in order to do routing? The operating system already has the routing tables and knows the routes and IP addresses better than we do. Therefore, the operating system already does routing better than we can in IoTivity. So why do we need to do routing at all? This feature has never been described and its needs are not understood. As far as I can tell, it's not part of the spec, in any version I've seen. We're asking that you share this information so we can come up with a proper, long-term solution. > The main subject of the mail is > because of your changes, this API is not working. The API might be flawed. We need to establish whether it makes sense before we go back to inserting code to support it. > Only Application devlopers required to use C or C++ APIs. > Any feature contributors can use internal APIs and any feature can have unit > test cases and samples to make sure all units are functional. If you feel > an internal API is unnecessary, please raise the issue during the biweekly > CC or through the dev-mailing list before you changes. IoTivity has no bi-weekly calls or any call at any frequency. If you're meeting outside of IoTivity, please post any conclusions to the mailing list. You're right that IoTivity features can use the internal API. But the IoTivity feature itself needs to be unit-tested so we can catch the breakage when the changes are done. I'd like us to investigate why the failure was allowed to happen in the first place. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
