On 2016-12-01 16:38, Daniel Golle wrote:
> Hi Felix,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:12:38PM +0100, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> On 2016-12-01 16:05, Daniel Golle wrote:
>> > I was following your posts and do believe there is quite some overlap.
>> > It would thus be feasible to generalize the common parts (ubus call
>> > proxy, ubus service proxy, ubus remote monitor) by agreeing on a shared
>> > interface the actual implementations shall use. In that way, people
>> > can choose whether they want WebSockets, TR-069 or a suitable P2P
>> > framework depending on their specific needs.
>> > Has anything of your current approach at IOPSYS been made available
>> > publicly (eg. on github?)
>> > 
>> > From what I can tell there is also some overlap with Felix' proposed
>> > System Configuration Abstraction Layer, just that my envisioned use
>> > exceeds system configuration as it includes sensors, events and actors
>> > rather than just access to a configuration model.
>> If it makes sense, I'd be open to extending my abstraction layer to make
>> it suitable for your use case as well.
>> Feel free to propose changes to it if you like.
> 
> Having a first deeper look at scal I believe that access to sensors
> and actors could be implemented inside scal similar to the existing
> shell and system backends. That would be nice, as then scal would
> make things available on ubus and provide the ACL mechanics.
Nice. Maybe we can reinterpret the acronym as "System Communication
Abstraction Layer". I'd be fine with renaming it to something else as
well, I just didn't find a better name for it yet.

I think a good approach would be to add a dlopen plugin API to the json
plugin itself, so you can use json files to parameterize access to
sensors and other devices.

Event handling could also be scripted through .json files using json_script.

> I'll have a deeper look and play with it to see whether that can
> work.
> 
> Ideally, data collection (think: interface counters and such things
> which need to be polled) and triggering events (think: link status
> updates) should also be made accessible.
> 
> A local database which exceeds UCI state as suggested by Luka could
> also be very useful, eg. for renewable energy or other applications
> where loss of connectivity should never imply loss of collected data.
Makes sense.

- Felix
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Reply via email to