- From: Gunnar Andersson <gandersson@genivi.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 10:46:21 +0200
- To: "Gavigan, Kevin" <kgavigan@jaguarlandrover.com>
- Cc: 이원석 <wonsuk.lee@etri.re.kr>, "Crofts, Adam" <acrofts1@jaguarlandrover.com>, public-automotive <public-automotive@w3.org>
On Tue, 2017-09-12 at 09:23 +0100, Gavigan, Kevin wrote: > Hi Gunnar, > > Thanks, you raise and make some very pertinent points. OK, good. I was hoping someone would go through each of them and just confirm that what I said was true, so far. Because this is a process to lead to a conclusion. But I suppose maybe you agreed now, implicitly? > > Suggest that another important point is: What if an OEM wants to install > two or more VIS Servers on the same vehicle network. Yes even name resolution of a single well known name would not solve that. You'd have to either have a discovery protocol of some sort (and then zeroconf comes to mind -- yes I now saw the feedback Ted relayed, mentioning mDNS, which is the same thing IIRC?) Or you would leave that up to OEM-specific configuration that is somehow passed from system to "app" when the app is launched. I think there's a limit to how far you will be able to here specify the exact application standard, which includes APIs like that between OS (or "application manager") and app. But a single well-known name might be useful still. In fact... come to think of it - is this thing perhaps better defined in a different specification, one which specifies an (automotive) web application standard, rather than in the server specification? > > For example, the designers of the instrument cluster might decide to > implement the VISS specification and install a VIS Server in the cluster > in order to get vehicle speed, engine rpm, fuel levels etc and display > them to the user. That's why I asked. Is this assuming a local server, or a server "anywhere". Is it simply intended to be a well-known name to address the *default* VIS server, wherever that exists in the entire routable (inter)net. > > Almost in parallel, the designers of the new Infotainment System decide to > implement the VISS specification and add a VIS Server to the electronic > control unit (ECU) that hosts the Infotainment System. > > Does anyone on the thread have views on how best to address this - or > should we remove references to wwwivi and state that implementors will > document how to connect to the VIS Server I still think you might be doing something useful if the specification requires (or perhaps recommends?) a well-known name for the default server. But I'm trying to really get to the root characteristics of what that thing is supposed to mean, before forming a final opinion. Thanks - Gunnar > -- Gunnar Andersson <gandersson@genivi.org> Development Lead GENIVI Alliance
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2017 08:46:55 UTC