[Dev] New Tizen Bluetooth Framwork (NTB) wiki page
tom.counihan at intel.com
Tue May 13 10:22:23 GMT 2014
I would echo Zoltan's request for use cases.
On the wiki (https://wiki.tizen.org/wiki/NTB_Architecture) I'm drawn to the design philosophy section where it states "Unified CAPI for Apps/UI".
Through the wiki, I sense this CAPI is a universal API for all verticals.
This is a very key assumption.
Can someone validate that this is the actual assumption today?
If so, what I would like help with is, can someone please direct me to the analysis that supports this assumptions.
The challenge I face is this. When I focus on IVI, and I look at the actual Bluetooth specs - for example:
HFP 1.6 - https://www.bluetooth.org/docman/handlers/downloaddoc.ashx?doc_id=238193
PBAP 1.2 - https://www.bluetooth.org/DocMan/handlers/DownloadDoc.ashx?doc_id=281299
MAP 1.2 - https://www.bluetooth.org/DocMan/handlers/DownloadDoc.ashx?doc_id=274479
ARVCP 1.5 - https://www.bluetooth.org/docman/handlers/DownloadDoc.ashx?doc_id=260861
You will quickly begin to see terminology like "Server Equipment", "Client Equipment", "Gateway", "Unit", "SRC", "SINK", "Controller", "Target", "Push Server", "Push Client" These are typically contained in Section "Configuration and Roles" of each spec.
What I want to impress on folks is, IVI's use cases are not identical to say a phones use cases.
One may argue that for some areas, like OPP the usage could be identical - I could buy this, but in this instance the use case for both devices would be they implement the use cases of _both_ server and client role.
However, to make this assumption universally I think is something that requires particular validation.
That said, it is evident that a lot of work has been done in this area. If there is analysis that supports the initial assumption of a unified CAPI for all verticals please direct me to same so I can study.
On an aside note, can someone give more insight into the statement:
"Some IOT and mobile related features are being developed.
I would like to know specifically if Ofono remains in focus for this work area for HFP use cases. Or whether there is a different thinking. My question is specifically in an IVI context where Ofono is used.
What I don't know if that decision remains constant or whether there is thinking to remove Ofono for this "HFP" agent.
Reference is made to Connman, which has a similar co-dependency with Bluez for its NAP/Panu use cases.
Ofono has a similar co-dependency for HFP. What I don't know if the lack of an Ofono statement is more an editorial error or an express design decision made.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dev [mailto:dev-bounces at lists.tizen.org] On Behalf Of Kis, Zoltan
> Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 1:57 PM
> To: Xu, Martin
> Cc: dev at lists.tizen.org; Liu, Bingwei
> Subject: Re: [Dev] New Tizen Bluetooth Framwork (NTB) wiki page
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 10:00 PM, Xu, Martin <martin.xu at intel.com> wrote:
> > All of your questions have been discussed for a long time between Samsung,
> upstream(Marcel, Johan, Luiz, you can assume that we are the same team).
> Perhaps discussed but really agreed yet? I am still missing the use cases. The
> only real use case I could imagine is a daemon handling bluetooth requests
> with user input needed. But that is not for the platform to provide. Products
> should provide that system dialog component and register it through the Agent
> Of course we could do a reference implementation, but it would be example
> code rather than a deployed component.
> > So it is not necessary for all the services to call BlueZ through CAPI, especially
> for the upstream projects already call BlueZ directly, we need not to make it
> call through CAPI. And we can assume that that project maintainer will
> maintain the project to align with BlueZ. Like oFono, it will call to BlueZ direct
> for HFP support.
> > On the contrary, Samsung want their telephony stack talk to BlueZ through
> CAPI, so they want to keep the HFP CAPI.
> OK, so this is only Samsung-specific. Does that affect Tizen mobile only? Any
> other needs there? (since HFP CAPI doesn't need a daemon)
> > So in general, the Tizen specific apps or services should based on CAPI, some
> system level service(especially upstream one) should case by case.
> C API perhaps, but why another service? A minimal solution would be a library
> which is an extension/wrapper of bluez lib, also implementing the CAPI, and
> provide the agent as a testable example code, similar to
> but in C. Tizen products could extend that for implementing the device specific
> Best regards,
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at lists.tizen.org
Intel Shannon Limited
Registered in Ireland
Registered Office: Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare
Registered Number: 308263
Business address: Dromore House, East Park, Shannon, Co. Clare
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
More information about the Dev