Uze Choi, Thank you for catching me up on what you have discussed. I share your concern about code size. I hope someone is also considering the issue of RAM size, which is also highly constrained on some lite devices. The IoTivity stack uses much more RAM than it needs to, I believe. And the current IoTivity stack RAM usage encourages fragmentation, which I have written about elsewhere. For both the code size and RAM size, perhaps we should think in terms of a budget. There are three components on lite devices, and we only control one. Typically, there is the size of the application, the size of IoTivity, and the size of the operating environment, which is often an RTOS. Up to this point I have seen some of us think IoTivity gets most of the resources in a constrained environment, when I believe we should be trying to maximize the resources available to the application. This requires us to consider that the server application on a lite device might be very sophisticated and benefit from as many resources as it can get. John Light Intel OTC OIC development
From: ???(Uze Choi) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 8:36 PM To: Light, John J; jinguk.jeong at samsung.com; 'Security of Things SOT' Cc: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: RE: [dev] iotivity architecture document Hi John,
