SGVsbG8sIA0KIA0KSSBoYXZlIGEgZG91YnQgd2l0aCBjdXJyZW50IGRpc2NvdmVyeSBtZWNoYW5p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Hi,
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Jaganath Kanakkassery
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Luiz,
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Luiz Augusto von Dentz" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:24 PM
> To: "Jaganath" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Query regarding device discovery
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:27 AM, JAGANATH KANAKKASSERY
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have a doubt with current discovery mechanism.
>>>
>>> Suppose application 1 calls "StartDiscovery". for which "Discovering =
>>> TRUE" comes
>>> and then deviceFound signals starts coming.
>>> In the mean time application 2 calls "StartDiscovery" which will be
>>> queued in BlueZ.
>>> Then "discovering = FALSE" comes for the discovery initiated from
>>> application 1.
>>> Then as per BlueZ design, it will restart discovery for application 1
>>> since it has not
>>> called "StopDiscovery" yet. So "discovering = TRUE" comes again, which
>>> application 2
>>> thinks that it belongs to him.
>>> Then if application 1 calls "StopDiscovery" immediately, discovery will
>>> be stopped
>>> and "Discovering = FALSE" comes with which application 2 too thinks that
>>> discovery
>>> initiated by him is also done.
>>> So eventually application 2 will not get any devices.
>>> So I think with current design, applications that are interested only in
>>> one complete
>>> inquiry session will be in trouble.
>>>
>>> So can we disable the automatic reinitiating of device discovery?
>>> Or is there any way to handle this scenario?
>>
>>
>>
>> StartDiscovery doesn't queue the sessions, it actually increase the
>> reference to the same discovery session which became shared between
>> the callers, it should not interfere with the ongoing discovery nor
>> change how we emit Discovering. That being said the concept of one
>> shot inquiry is flawed since it can miss devices, with addition of LE
>> this is even more visible because each inquiry is only 5.12 sec., you
>> can still detect when an inquiry is active just check when Discovering
>> is TRUE and nope it should not matter if there is 1 or 20 application
>> listening to it once Discovery switch to TRUE we are inquiring/scan
>> when it switch to FALSE it has stopped and is probably doing name
>> resolving.
>
>
> With this concept even if inquiry is completed, Discovery = FALSE should not
> be sent. Because anyway BlueZ will start a new Discovery on its own.
> So application gets Discovery = FALSE and then immediately Discovery = TRUE.
> So I think until application calls "StopDiscovery", Discovery = FALSE should
> not be sent
StartDiscovery processing with 3 instances is like this:
StartDiscovery #1
org.bluez.Adapter.Discovering=TRUE
Inquiry
name resolving
org.bluez.Adapter.Discovering=FALSE
org.bluez.Adapter.Discovering=TRUE
Inquiry
name resolving
org.bluez.Adapter.Discovering=FALSE
StartDiscovery #2
org.bluez.Adapter.Discovering=TRUE
Inquiry
StartDiscovery #3
name resolving
org.bluez.Adapter.Discovering=FALSE
...
org.bluez.Adapter.Discovering=TRUE
StopDiscovery #3
Inquiry
StopDiscovery #2
StopDiscovery #1
org.bluez.Adapter.Discovering=FALSE
So org.bluez.Adapter.Discovering=TRUE will track each individual round
of the inquiry+name resolving, org.bluez.Adapter.Discovering=FALSE is
there just to let you know when another round is about to start in
case anyones cares about each individual round or want to do a single
round of discovery.
--
Luiz Augusto von Dentz
Hi Luiz,
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Luiz Augusto von Dentz" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 3:24 PM
To: "Jaganath" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Query regarding device discovery
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:27 AM, JAGANATH KANAKKASSERY
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have a doubt with current discovery mechanism.
>>
>> Suppose application 1 calls "StartDiscovery". for which "Discovering =
>> TRUE" comes
>> and then deviceFound signals starts coming.
>> In the mean time application 2 calls "StartDiscovery" which will be
>> queued in BlueZ.
>> Then "discovering = FALSE" comes for the discovery initiated from
>> application 1.
>> Then as per BlueZ design, it will restart discovery for application 1
>> since it has not
>> called "StopDiscovery" yet. So "discovering = TRUE" comes again, which
>> application 2
>> thinks that it belongs to him.
>> Then if application 1 calls "StopDiscovery" immediately, discovery will
>> be stopped
>> and "Discovering = FALSE" comes with which application 2 too thinks that
>> discovery
>> initiated by him is also done.
>> So eventually application 2 will not get any devices.
>> So I think with current design, applications that are interested only in
>> one complete
>> inquiry session will be in trouble.
>>
>> So can we disable the automatic reinitiating of device discovery?
>> Or is there any way to handle this scenario?
>
>
> StartDiscovery doesn't queue the sessions, it actually increase the
> reference to the same discovery session which became shared between
> the callers, it should not interfere with the ongoing discovery nor
> change how we emit Discovering. That being said the concept of one
> shot inquiry is flawed since it can miss devices, with addition of LE
> this is even more visible because each inquiry is only 5.12 sec., you
> can still detect when an inquiry is active just check when Discovering
> is TRUE and nope it should not matter if there is 1 or 20 application
> listening to it once Discovery switch to TRUE we are inquiring/scan
> when it switch to FALSE it has stopped and is probably doing name
> resolving.
With this concept even if inquiry is completed, Discovery = FALSE should not
be sent. Because anyway BlueZ will start a new Discovery on its own.
So application gets Discovery = FALSE and then immediately Discovery = TRUE.
So I think until application calls "StopDiscovery", Discovery = FALSE should
not be sent
Thanks,
Jaganath
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 11:27 AM, JAGANATH KANAKKASSERY
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a doubt with current discovery mechanism.
>
> Suppose application 1 calls "StartDiscovery". for which "Discovering = TRUE" comes
> and then deviceFound signals starts coming.
> In the mean time application 2 calls "StartDiscovery" which will be queued in BlueZ.
> Then "discovering = FALSE" comes for the discovery initiated from application 1.
> Then as per BlueZ design, it will restart discovery for application 1 since it has not
> called "StopDiscovery" yet. So "discovering = TRUE" comes again, which application 2
> thinks that it belongs to him.
> Then if application 1 calls "StopDiscovery" immediately, discovery will be stopped
> and "Discovering = FALSE" comes with which application 2 too thinks that discovery
> initiated by him is also done.
> So eventually application 2 will not get any devices.
> So I think with current design, applications that are interested only in one complete
> inquiry session will be in trouble.
>
> So can we disable the automatic reinitiating of device discovery?
> Or is there any way to handle this scenario?
StartDiscovery doesn't queue the sessions, it actually increase the
reference to the same discovery session which became shared between
the callers, it should not interfere with the ongoing discovery nor
change how we emit Discovering. That being said the concept of one
shot inquiry is flawed since it can miss devices, with addition of LE
this is even more visible because each inquiry is only 5.12 sec., you
can still detect when an inquiry is active just check when Discovering
is TRUE and nope it should not matter if there is 1 or 20 application
listening to it once Discovery switch to TRUE we are inquiring/scan
when it switch to FALSE it has stopped and is probably doing name
resolving.
--
Luiz Augusto von Dentz