On quarta-feira, 5 de julho de 2017 10:15:28 PDT Morrow, Joseph L wrote: > This has the potential to sound fine and dandy for servers. I don?t think I > can say the same for clients. Clients should be allowed to come and go as > they please. And with that, they should be allowed to come and go > gracefully.
That's true. I was mostly thinking about servers and they (today) have to be always-on. Clients don't have that requirement. But clients also could sleep any time that they wanted to. It's up to the application layer to decide that. If it has no reply outstanding to a request it's recently sent, it can sleep. Worst case scenario is that it will miss some notification updates, if it subscribed to anything. In fact, a good client should cancel any notifications it may have and when it resumes, it re-syncs. > Is this a case you can even build a certification test for? I suppose you > could suspend a client and have the CTT tool look for the appropriate > messages and come back into the session and continue the CTT battery of > tests. That would have the same level of user interaction required during > testing as tests for NOTIFY currently require. I don't think you could write a certification case for this. The CTT can't tell the entire device sleeping from the application deciding to do nothing. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
