Re: [leshan-dev] Use registration Endpoint URI in Client object

["Kraus Achim (INST/ESY1)" <Achim.Kraus@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi List,

I tested a little with the "improve_builder" branch.
I think PR #194 is required to make notifications over coaps working again.

> In the course of figuring out what would need to be changed I stumbled across the fact that we keep references to the
> "nonSecureEndpoint" and the "secureEndpoint" all over the place. My understanding was that we do this mostly in order 
> to be able to determine, whether a request uses a secured endpoint or not. I think that this is not very elegant and it also
> limits us to use one non-secure and one secure endpoint. But what if we want to use a secure endpoint for coap and one
> for coap+tcp?

I also stumbled into that when trying to use the TCP connectors.
There are still some functions left, where the tupel of plain and secure endpoint is used
(CaliforniumObservationRegistry, CaliforniumLwM2mBootstrapRequestSender), 
So I would like to change them to "Set<Endpoint>" as well.

Are there any issues, not doing so?
I would prepare the changes then into an additional branch based on "improve_builder", right?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards

Achim Kraus

Bosch Software Innovations GmbH
Communications (INST/ESY1)
Stuttgarter Straße 130
71332 Waiblingen
GERMANY
www.bosch-si.de
www.blog.bosch-si.com 

Registered office: Berlin, Register court: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 148411 B
Executives: Dr.-Ing. Rainer Kallenbach; Michael Hahn



-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: leshan-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:leshan-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Hudalla Kai (INST/ESY1)
Gesendet: Montag, 10. Oktober 2016 16:17
An: leshan-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [leshan-dev] Use registration Endpoint URI in Client object

Hi,

I have been playing around with the LeshanDemoServer during the last weeks and had some problems figuring out how to configure it with Californium Endpoints managed by my client code, i.e. not implicitly created by LeshanServerBuilder.

In the course of figuring out what would need to be changed I stumbled across the fact that we keep references to the "nonSecureEndpoint" and the "secureEndpoint"
all over the place. My understanding was that we do this mostly in order to be able to determine, whether a request uses a secured endpoint or not. I think that this is not very elegant and it also limits us to use one non-secure and one secure endpoint. But what if we want to use a secure endpoint for coap and one for coap+tcp?

On Californium's 2.0.x branch I have therefore added a getUri() method to the Endpoint interface which can be used to determine both the protocol the Endpoint supports as well as the socket address it listens on. Based on this I have made a small change to leshan's Client class to now keep the registration Endpoint's URI instead of merely the socket address. This, however, also required some small changes in some other dependent classes as well.

I have pushed the "improve_builder" branch to the leshan repo containing these changes as well as a change to LeshanServerBuilder allowing client code to provide a set of arbitrary Endpoints to be used when building the LeshanServer.

Do these changes pose a problem to you guys? In particular the change to Client might have an impact on a custom (persistent) implementation of ClientRegistry, I guess ...

I would otherwise like to create an M3 milestone of Californium 2.0.x in order to be able to create a PR ...

--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards

Kai Hudalla
Chief Software Architect

Bosch Software Innovations GmbH
Schöneberger Ufer 89-91
10785 Berlin
GERMANY
www.bosch-si.com

Registered office: Berlin, Register court: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 148411 B;
Executives: Dr.-Ing. Rainer Kallenbach, Michael Hahn _______________________________________________
leshan-dev mailing list
leshan-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/leshan-dev