Hi, tried to find working Arduino code - but couldn?t. Neither in iotivity nor in iotivity-constrained. Removing the broken one from iotivity means that we remove a feature - is this correct? We change a once exitisng feature into a marketing promisse. Just doing the summary here, please corect me if I?m wrong :-)
Christian > On 2 Mar 2017, at 01:34, Dave Thaler via iotivity-dev <iotivity-dev at > lists.iotivity.org> wrote: > > Based on this thread and the lack of any technical reasons presented for not > following the proposed plan, > the decision is to go again as planned. I will ask CJ to remove Arduino from > the regular jenkins CI builds. > > And yes we will make sure marketing is such that the iotivity suite of stuff > (iotivity & iotivity-constrained) does > support Arduino, via the iotivity-constrained project, for which Arduino > *shall* be part of jenkins CI builds. > > Dave Thaler > IoTivity Platform Support Maintainer > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thiago Macieira [mailto:thiago.macieira at intel.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 4:26 PM > To: iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org; Dave Thaler <dthaler at microsoft.com> > Cc: Ashok Babu Channa <ashok.channa at samsung.com> > Subject: Re: [dev] Should IoTivity Arduino support be dropped? > > On domingo, 26 de fevereiro de 2017 22:34:12 PST Ashok Babu Channa wrote: >> Yes, I support the dropping of IoTivity for Arduino but not immediately. >> >> "Iotivity does not support Arduino" sends the wrong message. >> n Yes., until we have some constrained releases, better we keep it. > > I'm of a different opinion: I don't think Arduino is a sensible platform for > real devices. Everyone I've asked that is serious about making devices tells > me that Arduino can't be taken past prototype stage. Instead, for real uses. > they need real OSes with good WiFi, 6LoWPAN and/or Bluetooth, plus security > functionality, and that's the kind of OS that IoTivity-constrained targets. > Therefore, it makes little sense to even prototype with Arduino. > > As for the lack of release, that's easily solved: we can make a 0.x release > at any time. I feel that a 1.0 makes no sense so long as OCF certification > requires keeping the radio on all the time -- no one will make constrained > devices like that (this is a topic I will bring up inside OCF next week). > >> We can find sub-maintainer till then if that is a major problem. > > Point them to IoTivity-constrained. If there is sufficient interest and > motivation, an Arduino port can be revived there. In fact, it makes more > sense to be there anyway. > > So my suggestion is to do as Dave proposed: drop Arduino support immediately > from the 1.3 releases, remove the #ifdefs as time goes by. And going further: > remove the #ifdefs that are in the way and clutter the code base ASAP (we > have quite a few of those). > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > > _______________________________________________ > iotivity-dev mailing list > iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org > https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
