On Thursday 19 March 2015 06:21:56 JinGuk Jeong wrote: > Dear IoTivity Developers, > > Since I want to technically discuss about a way how to support > ZigBee/Z-Wave, I am sending an email to you. I think this feature is very > important feature because there are so many ZigBee/Z-Wave devices in the > world. However, we need to consider several issues such as chip dependency, > code size, and so on. Currently, there are two approaches for that, and you > can find these approaches in attached file. Plz give your feedback about > this.
Hi Jinguk Thanks for sharing the outlines of the two options. I'm probably missing something... it seems quite straightforward to me that the simplest answer would be #1, which is why I think I am missing something. Why would option #2 be considered? My thinking is: 1) the Zigbee/ZWave wire protocol and message format is wildly different from the OIC one (discovery, communication, authentication, encryption, authorisation, etc.). That means the only abstraction that would be common between OIC and a Zigbee device is at the level of a service. That is, a lightbulb is still a lightbulb by any other name. 2) there are probably existing libraries to talk to zigbee adapters and speak zigbee protocols (or zwave), which means we would spend less time trying to abstract them on CA. Instead, we gain time by simply wrapping them at the highest level possible -- the service layer. The only thing that comes to mind about wanting to have CA service zigbee is if we wanted to share the infrastructure between multiple zigbee-capable devices. But isn't that what the zigbee libraries should already be doing? Do such iibraries exist? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
