Uze - perhaps you are in the best position to address Thiago's question on why the services require adaptor type (see below).
--Vijay > The current CA code mainly focusses on item 1, some limited support > for 2, and no support for 3. > > The current APIs only support one adaptor of each adaptor type, a > starting step for APIs as well as implementation, and not a long term > solution. It should be noted that there are no current plans for CA > to have "smarts" to know that resources are reachable via multiple > adaptors and manage selection/switching between adaptors. For this > reason, and also because existing Iotivity services asked that the > adaptor type be exposed, current APIs include adaptor-type information. When you say "no current plans", are you including "no work expected before 1.0"? As long as CA is not part of the IoTivity API that users can use, we can fix it later. Otherwise, it's a fatal flaw and blocks 1.0. Why did the IoTivity services require the adaptor type? That's totally surprising to me. Given all of this discussion... sorry to be blunt, but do we need CA at all? It seems to be going in the wrong direction.
