Hello Jeremiah, On Aug 5, 2011, at 3:48, Jeremiah Foster wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Romain KUNTZ <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Aug 4, 2011, at 2:21, Jeremiah Foster wrote: >> > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Jussi Vänskä <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > On 08/03/2011 06:01 PM, Jeremiah Foster wrote: >> >> >> for tier 1 developers >> >> - Qt API >> >> >> >> This excludes ECU to ECU communication. Tier 1's would likely never >> >> accept this. >> > >> > Nor will any legislator approve MeeGo based systems to be used in any sort >> > of safety critical or even safety aware systems. Crafting an API for >> > automotive control systems is not the issue here, as the software stack >> > won't get certificated for use in safety critical systems. >> > >> > Really? What gives you that impression? Ford uses SYNC from Microsoft, >> > that is on the road already. Do you feel MeeGo IVI is not intended to be a >> > commercial OS in a head unit? What is its niche then? >> >> Ford SYNC is not about safety. I think you can forget about any safety >> critical-related things from MeeGo IVI. Getting information from the various >> bus is fine, but internode communication or talking to ECU won't certainly >> happen from the head-unit. I highly doubt that car manufacturers would allow >> this. >> > My understanding is that in some specific instances the Head Unit will indeed > need to talk to the vehicle. I'm not pointing to safety critical systems here > however, but pointing out in a rather general way that the Qt API is likely > way to abstracted from the vehicle's controls to be enough to fulfill > requirements, including OEM and Tier 1 requirements. I worry that limiting > MeeGo IVI to only Qt APIs will likely make it not suitable for a production > Head Unit which makes the entire MeeGo IVI enterprise less viable. > > Why would people invest time and energy in something that wasn't going to be > a product?
Right, Qt APIs may only be suitable to a certain category of applications. But before focusing on implementation details, I believe we should first define exactly what categories of applications would be available on the head unit (Tier-1/OEM, certified developer, anybody's app?), what kind of data would be made available to these applications, and what kind of interactions with the vehicle would be possible from these applications. >From that we will certainly be able to better identify whether the current >security framework offered by Meego is suitable, as well as how the API could >be implemented. Regards, Romain _______________________________________________ MeeGo-ivi mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-ivi
