On quinta-feira, 4 de fevereiro de 2016 15:07:27 PST Mitch Kettrick wrote: > I think you give application developers too much credit (present company > excluded, of course). :) I've heard about cases where chatty applications > have brought down a wireless network because they asked "Are we there yet?" > every few milliseconds when every few minutes would have been sufficient for > the application. If you give a developer a lever, some can and will pull > it as often as they can. It's cheap for a client with a big fat battery to > poll a device while it's relatively expensive for a constrained device to > listen to and respond to all of those requests.
Oh, no doubt. No discussion there. But my point is on how to achieve that education. I simply don't think that changing the default will help us achieve that goal, while it may cause confusion by being a red herring. > Regarding power, I slightly disagree that it's completely out of scope for > the OIC. Other technologies (again, citing BTLE) have gone to great lengths > to make their protocol as efficient as possible from a bandwidth and power > perspective. If we intend to compete with them in the "low energy" space, > we need to have a compelling solution, right? Or do we not consider BTLE a > competitor? I didn't mean to imply it's out of scope. I merely said that neither you nor I (nor anyone participating in this thread, from what I can see) know enough to provide relevant information. Since we're speculating, I proposed we table the discussion on power. And to repeat: I agree on sending shorter packets. I just disagree on how to make application developers choose to request that. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
