Re: [riot-devel] RIOT Vs Iotivity, AllJoyn, Thread

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:40:13 +0200, Baptiste Clenet wrote: > 2016-06-09 1:29 GMT+02:00 Martine Lenders : > > > Hi, > > > > 2016-06-08 20:29 GMT+02:00 Iván Briano : > > > >> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 19:58:50 +0200, Baptiste Clenet wrote: > >> > 2016-06-08

Re: [riot-devel] RIOT Vs Iotivity, AllJoyn, Thread

2016-06-09 1:29 GMT+02:00 Martine Lenders : > Hi, > > 2016-06-08 20:29 GMT+02:00 Iván Briano : > >> On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 19:58:50 +0200, Baptiste Clenet wrote: >> > 2016-06-08 17:14 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Baccelli < >> emmanuel.bacce...@inria.fr>: >> >

Re: [riot-devel] RIOT Vs Iotivity, AllJoyn, Thread

Hi, 2016-06-08 20:29 GMT+02:00 Iván Briano : > On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 19:58:50 +0200, Baptiste Clenet wrote: > > 2016-06-08 17:14 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Baccelli >: > > > > > Hi Ivan, > > > it would be great to have it as a pkg indeed! > > > That's

Re: [riot-devel] RIOT Vs Iotivity, AllJoyn, Thread

Hi Ivan, it would be great to have it as a pkg indeed! That's the standard way third-party stacks are integrated in RIOT. Looking forward to that, Emmanuel On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Iván Briano wrote: > On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:46:31 +0200, Baptiste Clenet wrote: > >

Re: [riot-devel] RIOT Vs Iotivity, AllJoyn, Thread

Thanks for your answers. Could we integrate Soletta OIC implementation part as a pkg in RIOT? 2016-06-07 12:58 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Baccelli : > Hi Gustavo, Hi Ivan, > ok I see. thanks for your answers. > That's too bad. It would have been great to gather OIC/OCF people

Re: [riot-devel] RIOT Vs Iotivity, AllJoyn, Thread

Hi Gustavo, Hi Ivan, ok I see. thanks for your answers. That's too bad. It would have been great to gather OIC/OCF people in the same room with W3C, IETF and OpenThread people (who are attending the RIOT Summit) to discuss various IoT network stack approaches, and various IoT open source software

Re: [riot-devel] RIOT Vs Iotivity, AllJoyn, Thread

Sorry, I was under the assumption that this had been settled in private conversations already, but now I see that's not the case (and the person involved is not even copied). Soletta has an implementation of OIC, the protocol that IoTivity implements, but there's nothing about AllJoyn or Thread.

Re: [riot-devel] RIOT Vs Iotivity, AllJoyn, Thread

Hello Baptiste, Emmanuel I'll let the people more familiar (in cc) with it reply. On terça-feira, 31 de maio de 2016 16:05:22 BRT Emmanuel Baccelli wrote: > Hi Thiago, > basically, we are interested in learning more about it. > And in particular, we were wondering whether it could be a good idea

Re: [riot-devel] RIOT Vs Iotivity, AllJoyn, Thread

Hi Thiago, basically, we are interested in learning more about it. And in particular, we were wondering whether it could be a good idea to present this at the RIOT Summit [1]. What do you think about this idea? Best, Emmanuel [1] summit.riot-os.org On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Baptiste

Re: [riot-devel] RIOT Vs Iotivity, AllJoyn, Thread

Not really but I saw him answering some post on Iotivity and Soletta project for people asking to port Iotivity to constraint object. Thiago, could you explain Soletta Project and the relation with OIC and RIOT please? 2016-05-30 21:07 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Baccelli : >

Re: [riot-devel] RIOT Vs Iotivity, AllJoyn, Thread

Hi, I correct what I said, Soletta Project is not an implementation of Iotivity but an implementation of OIC specification (Iotivity too) so Iotivity and Soletta project can communicate together since they use same specification. Intel Open Source is in charge of this project and you can ask

Re: [riot-devel] RIOT Vs Iotivity, AllJoyn, Thread

What I can answer from my point of view: - Iotivity would be great in RIOT, Soletta project [1] imported it for RIOT, I haven't tried it but it seems to work. I think Riot should have an implementation of Iotivity directly in its repo (package) so it will be better maintain. - AllJoyn, I haven't