[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [dsdp-mtj-dev] UEI Plugins
|
Hi Kevin,
A good question and I understand your
goal.
As the basis for our device management is kind a three
layer design, where:
- the model (EMF)
provides the needed objects to store the device
data,
- the DeviceManagement provides the access to the Core
layer and also manages the provider level components,
- the DevicePlatformProvider implements the detail
level device / SDK features.
In the starting point of the MTJ planning there were
some analysis showing that there could be also other communication ways against
the devices/SDK's (other than the UEI, there was mentions about XUEI
etc).
The current development has been focusing to tackle the UEI
based device/SDK access and there has not been any further discussion
around the possible other technologies. Thus, now it seems more obvious that we
(MTJ) has to have reservations for possible other kind of communications
against the device/SDK. As heard e.g. from Christian (Motorola), that they do
have a strong need for a more detailed and direct communication against the SDK,
than the UEI provides currently. And it may be similar case also with
Nokia.
Based on the above, there may be cases, where we should
have a set of different plug-ins that do provide the needed access to the SDK's,
with the scenario of their different versions.
If we e.g. bundle the UEI inside the DPP and do not allow
that the different protocol implementations are in separated plugins,
we may end up to a situation where we do have a fixed, monolithic approach,
where the adaptation to new set of implementations is very
difficult.
this component is probably having the most
dynamic changing reqs in MTJ and I would try to keep it's architecture/design as
dynamic / open as possible.
So, as
conclusion, if staying with the current one DPP approach,
no.
What
opinions do others have?
-Arto
I am looking at our tree structure for some changes in the runtime
executable category and was wondering why we maintain two plug-ins to support
the UEI code.
We have org.eclipse.mtj.executable.uei and
org.eclipipse.mtj.extension.dpp.uei. The second plug-in is mostly a wrapper
for a device provider whose functionality is
call contained in the first
plug-in.
I think we should look at merging these into the DPP plug-in
and eliminate the other.
What are your
thoughts?
kevin
-----------------------------
Kevin Horowitz
(khorowit @ us dot ibm dot com)
IBM Software Group - WPLC
8051 Congress
Ave.
Boca Raton, Fl 33487
+1-561-862-2113 (t/l
975)
