RE: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Implementation Alternatives

Hello Clarke,

 

The Proposed Alternatives is a reasonable starting point but does not
provide access to:

 

1.)    UPnP Device Description information

2.)    UPnP SOAP parameter type information.

3.)    REST non-query parameters.

 

It may be "difficult" to describe protocol-specific discovery and action
invocation in a way that does not reduce functionality provided by the
underlying protocols.

 

I'd suggest that outside of questions about what protocols a UA supports
that the JS APIs are defined on a per-protocol basis.

 

Regards,

Russell Berkoff

Samsung Electronics

From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Clarke Stevens
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 3:10 PM
To: public-web-and-tv@w3.org
Subject: [HOME_NETWORK_TF] Implementation Alternatives

 

I have posted a new document for implementation alternatives. The
purpose of the document is to provide example use cases and various ways
to implement the use cases. This is NOT intended as the comprehensive
use case list. It is meant to provide a few key use cases that
illustrate fundamental architectural examples and how they would be
implemented under various architectural models.

 

My hope is that this will drive discussion and point out the relative
strengths and weaknesses of different approaches in order to guide us to
a good solution.

 

You can find the document with a couple of initial examples here:

 

http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Alternatives

 

You can also get to it from the "Open Discussions" link on the main HNTF
page.

 

Thanks,

-Clarke