Em quinta-feira, 2 de mar?o de 2017, ?s 09:58:54 PST, Christian Gran escreveu: > Hi, > > did we consider that Arduino support got broken, because the stack with > security (which is mandatory in my mind) is just to large now for that > device?
Yes, we knew it was happening and moved on anyway. Security is not optional. So if the device couldn't support it, the device got dropped. Later, IoTivity-constrained came about and showed that it is able to support a full OCF stack with security in less RAM and Flash than what IoTivity-full's CSDK could. But no one has ressurrected Arduino support in IoTivity- constrained. > How can we, ignoring that, just move on and try to use other small > devices? Isn?t this a proof of concept - which now fails? We cannot. It's been proven that devices that small won't work with IoTivity- full. That's why we created IoTivity-constrained. > Why did it break? > Are we sure the stack can still fit? IoTivity-constrained can. The whole point of this discussion is whether we should even try to get the full one to fit. My reasoning is that it's a wasted effort to try. Just go with Constrained intead. > I think it is easy to say - it is broken - ok - lets remove that one and > look instead for other small devices (thin ice in my mind) ,-) With the right tools. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
