Regarding security path, we need to listen from Security maintainer/sub maintainers.
Do we have a good reason separate security paths as below? ./resource/csdk/security/include/ ./resource/csdk/security/provisioning/include/ Is it good place for C/C++ common header file? ./resource/csdk/include (octypes only...) How about to change it into ./resource/share/include or others? Regarding out directory, is it OK to put in into two folders ,prior to correcting the script to place all required header? ./include/c_common ./include/resource BR, Uze Choi -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Mihai [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 11:53 AM To: ??? (Uze Choi); Dave Thaler; 'Mats Wichmann'; 'Nash, George'; 'Philippe Coval'; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: RE: [dev] [Iotivity-maintainers] C API docs: which Doxyfile? I like the structure below. Not a big deal but: I would remove security/provisioning/include/oxm and security/provisioning/include/cloud and move their header files into security/provisioning/include. As you said, the Out directory seems to be missing useful headers. Hopefully we can change sometime the SConscript files for example apps to use just headers and LIBs from Out. For example, I have just looked at the way devicediscoveryclient.cpp is currently compiled: it has an undesirable mix of include paths from ./resource and from ./out. Dan -----Original Message----- From: ??? (Uze Choi) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 6:45 PM To: Dave Thaler <dthaler at microsoft.com>; 'Mats Wichmann' <mats at wichmann.us>; Daniel Mihai <Daniel.Mihai at microsoft.com>; 'Nash, George' <george.nash at intel.com>; 'Philippe Coval' <philippe.coval at osg.samsung.com>; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: RE: [dev] [Iotivity-maintainers] C API docs: which Doxyfile? Only what we need to define is source directory structure and out directory header directory structure. Let debug one by one. This is initial proposal.... what should we change?? [IoTivity Source code] C ./resource/c_common/include <-- new proposal...(merged into single directory..) ./resource/csdk/include (octypes only...) ./resource/csdk/stack/include ./resource/csdk/security/include ./resource/csdk/security/provisioning/include ./resource/csdk/security/provisioning/include/oxm ./resource/csdk/security/provisioning/include/cloud ./resource/csdk/routing/include ./resource/csdk/resource-directory/include C++ ./resource/include (All C++ header) ./resource/csdk/include (octypes common to C API) [Out directory] C/C++ : lots of missing header file here... ./include/c_common ./include/resource BR, Uze Choi -----Original Message----- From: Dave Thaler [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 3:03 AM To: Mats Wichmann; Daniel Mihai; ??? (Uze Choi); 'Nash, George'; 'Philippe Coval'; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org Subject: RE: [dev] [Iotivity-maintainers] C API docs: which Doxyfile? > From: Mats Wichmann > So I'm guessing in the short term only the "installed location" > question can reasonably be addressed. That is a single directory in > "out", but still split into a number of subdirs. Is that "good > enough" or is there more work to be done? Does anyone actually build against > the "out" tree? Yes. And I'm fine with Dan's recommendation. Dave
