Thanks Clarks. Glad to know you are aware of the problems. Hope the OCF eco-system becomes easier for adoption.
BR, Khaled On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 7:07 PM Clarke Stevens <csteven...@gmail.com> wrote: > Khaled, > > Yes, yes, yes! Fortunately, we are very aware of this problem and are > working on it. Nathan is leading the effort to improve both the IoTivity > and OCF web sites to make sure developers can find what they need. We are > working out details to have that work done very soon. I am actively working > on making sure developers have tools to efficiently do development. > Documentation (I think) is still lacking. Wouter has repeatedly pointed > this out. We are working to address this. > > In OCF, we are continually pointing out the areas we need to address in > IoTivity backed primarily by IoTivity developers like you. Please keep the > comments coming. I think the squeaky wheel will get the grease. > > I’m hoping companies will see the benefits of OCF and will develop > products and provide resources around IoTivity and that the ecosystem will > evolve to better support itself. > > Thanks, > -Clarke > > On Dec 9, 2018, at 4:43 AM, Khaled Elsayed <khaledi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The article has some inaccuracies. That's for sure. However, there is a > problem with OCF/IoTivity market adoption. I am not involved with any > company developing and we use IoTivity in a research project. We selected > IoTivity as our framework mainly because of its technical superiority. The > promise and vision are great. However, we faced many problems in the > project: > > 1) The specs are complex. Does a simple IoT device need to support all of > this? > 2) Documentation is lacking. Sometimes (actually often) code is not in > synch with web documentation. Only very simple issues/examples are well > documented. No complete developers guide available. API's are documented > yes, but this is not enough. > 3) Complex source code tree and strong but not very familiar build tool > (scons). Then code reviews on gerrit then another (JIRA) for tickets. Then > you find source code on github but pull requests are not used there. Go to > gerrit or JIRA to merge code or raise issues. > 4) Logs are long and not-very-configurable what to log and what not to log > (difficult to debug). Not to mention that the output to debug is nested in > a very long path due to all the supported platforms. > > So all the above has resulted in long learning curve for developers who > want to develop over the stack compared with say MQTT or closed vendor > systems (some of which are becoming a de-facto standard). I have to say > that latest IoTivity code drops are much better and stable (or maybe we > have grown up and learned it better, I think it is actually both :-) > > Of course I might have inaccuracies (as that referenced article) but this > is just a feedback from a small team convinced with the spec/technology and > its merits but facing some troubles going forward smoothly. I am not > intending this as an endless discussion just a feedback that probably some > other teams faced. > > Best regards, > > Khaled > > > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 9:21 PM Gregg Reynolds <d...@mobileink.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018, 3:26 PM Clarke Stevens <csteven...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Gregg, >>> >>> I’m in the OCF marketing group and I think you know I lead the developer >>> tools group for OCF. >>> >>> I think most everyone in the marketing group has seen this article, but >>> I passed it on anyway. I think this came out in September after several >>> appliance manufacturers made announcements that they will have OCF products >>> in 2019. >>> >>> I’m maybe not as concerned as you that this is bad press. First of all, >>> we are trying to solve a very hard technical problem by bringing together a >>> bunch of competitors that have their own political problems and asking them >>> to play nice and give their competitors more access to their products. >>> >>> While I am a strong believer that this ultimately helps everyone (see >>> the Internet, electrical grid, cell phones, etc.), it is a difficult thing >>> for companies to do. >>> >>> Also, several of the points of Stacey’s article are either inaccurate or >>> have been subsequently improved. >>> >> >> Thanks (also to Matts). That's kinda what I thought. >> >>> >>> Having said that, OCF still has very hard problems to solve and is >>> managing it with a lot of volunteer effort (like you - thanks). The >>> ultimate success of OCF will depend on adoption and that was probably >>> Stacey’s strongest argument. We haven’t done that - yet. I’m optimistic >>> that we will reach the tipping point in 2019, but that is still a big risk. >>> For better or for worse, there aren’t really any other organizations trying >>> to solve the problem like OCF. The most viable current solutions involve >>> converting people to architectures promoted by a single company. I hope >>> that’s not the way the future evolves. >>> >> >> Well said. I'm cautiously optimistic myself about 2019. Now if Bitcoin >> would just rally, heh. >> >> >>> I believe OCF has or is in the process of scheduling an interview with >>> Stacey. If that works out, I’m hoping we can clear up some of the >>> inaccuracies and give her a more optimistic outlook of where OCF is and >>> when it can better fulfill its promise. >>> >> >> Great! I look fwd to it. >> >> G >> >> >> >> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#10063): https://lists.iotivity.org/g/iotivity-dev/message/10063 Mute This Topic: https://lists.iotivity.org/mt/28653513/21656 Group Owner: iotivity-dev+ow...@lists.iotivity.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.iotivity.org/g/iotivity-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
