> update the wiki so I can point people there.
>
> George
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mats Wichmann [mailto:mats at wichmann.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 12:54 PM
> To: Nash, George ; LaBrecque, Margaret <
> margaret.labrecque at intel.com>; iotivit
...@wichmann.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 12:54 PM
To: Nash, George ; LaBrecque, Margaret
; iotivity-dev at lists.iotivity.org
Subject: Re: [dev] prelim list of areas where IoTivity needs new contributors
On 05/03/2017 01:17 PM, Nash, George wrote:
> Margaret,
>
> I split the documentation
at lists.iotivity.org
Subject: Re: [dev] prelim list of areas where IoTivity needs new contributors
To clarify, I created this list with input from Intel IoTivity developers - so
that we could have a starting point - but I'm looking for other IoTivity
project members to add to the sheet and/or modify
To clarify, I created this list with input from Intel IoTivity developers - so
that we could have a starting point - but I'm looking for other IoTivity
project members to add to the sheet and/or modify the existing items and/or
volunteer to be additional mentors.
thx, Margaret
From:
Hi,
John Park, the OCF Exec Dir, requested a list of IoTivity areas which need
contribution in order to facilitate the OCF Board's (and others') request for
new contributors.
We started a Google Sheet to compile areas where IoTivity needs contribution.
We also assigned Mentors that will help
I think API work should be waaay beyond the current scope you defined.
Current Cpp/Java APIs for example lacks basic OO design principles, which
makes IoTivity very hard to integrate with other systems or even build a
system from scratch without having to write lots of "feature wrappers".
On May 3, 2017 2:02 PM, "Thiago Moura" wrote:
I think API work should be waaay beyond the current scope you defined.
Current Cpp/Java APIs for example
speaking of the Java API, this is a good reason to treat it as a completely
separate thing, not part of core iotivity. fwiw i'm in the final
On May 3, 2017 2:02 PM, "Thiago Moura" wrote:
I think API work should be waaay beyond the current scope you defined.
Current Cpp/Java APIs for example lacks basic OO design principles, which
makes IoTivity very hard to integrate with other systems or even build a
system from scratch without
On 05/03/2017 01:17 PM, Nash, George wrote:
> Margaret,
>
> I split the documentation into two sections API documentation and Wiki
> documentation. I am prepared to be a mentor for API related documentation but
> I am not prepared to do the same for wiki related changes.
>
> If someone feels
On May 3, 2017 1:17 PM, "LaBrecque, Margaret"
wrote:
Hi,
John Park, the OCF Exec Dir, requested a list of IoTivity areas which need
contribution in order to facilitate the OCF Board?s (and others?) request
for new contributors.
We started a Google Sheet to compile areas where IoTivity
10 matches
Mail list logo
