RE: [Fwd: local device discovery - api, demo and source code]



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-web-and-tv-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-and-tv-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Giuseppe Pascale
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 8:59 AM
> To: Glenn Adams; Dave Raggett
> Cc: Mark Watson; public-web-and-tv@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: local device discovery - api, demo and source code]
> 
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:52:33 +0200, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> wrote:
> >> The question remains whether it is necessary or useful to define
> >> higher level abstraction layers, e.g., a low-level, generic UPnP
> >> layer, UPnP service specific layers, etc.
> >
> > Quite so. This could come later based upon experience by library
> > developers with exploring various approaches to defining overarching
> > abstractions.
> >
> Indeed, this is my opinion as well, that is not giving up on a higher
> level API, but starting from a "simpler" one and experiment on top of it
> with JS libraries.
> Then consider an higher level API, if this is felt as needed, at a
> second stage.

I also think this is the best approach. It is not at all obvious how a higher level API that spans the various home networking protocols would look. I think it will take implementation experience to zero in on what, if any, higher level API is best. This will only be possible if we have the simpler API first.

Bob Lund
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Giuseppe Pascale
> TV & Connected Devices
> Opera Software - Sweden

Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2011 15:39:08 UTC