Return-Path: Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030722125704.097cd218@unixmail.qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:05:28 -0700 To: Marcel Holtmann From: Max Krasnyansky Subject: Re: [Bluez-devel] Re: Version 3 libs/utils Cc: Stephen Crane , Philip Blundell , BlueZ Mailing List In-Reply-To: <1058870455.24408.66.camel@pegasus> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030721173324.096d96b0@unixmail.qualcomm.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030717163326.07385478@unixmail.qualcomm.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030630170200.0e4c3e28@unixmail.qualcomm.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030630170200.0e4c3e28@unixmail.qualcomm.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030717163326.07385478@unixmail.qualcomm.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20030721173324.096d96b0@unixmail.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-ID: At 03:40 AM 7/22/2003, Marcel Holtmann wrote: >Hi Max, > >> >The SDP server is needed in most cases (see my other post). Why do not >> >make it smart and integrate it. We need to keep track of different >> >Bluetooth adapters attached to one host, so if we have one daemon, the >> >SDP server can profite from a general approach. >> > >> >This idea is not completly designed, but it makes sense to me, because >> >in the long term, we can't live without SDP. >> I'd keep it separate. But I don't have very strong feeling about this one :). > >let's see how it goes. If we have more details on how the new Bluetooth >master server will look like, we may can make a better decission. Sounds good. >> >> Also I don't see a need for user space inquiry cache. I guess you mean name database or >> >> something. >> > >> >I meant inquiry cache in a little bit wider range. It should store >> >device specific information, but also the inquiry results. I think it is >> >a good idea, that the library also have access to the inquiry results, >> >because name resolves can be much faster if you fill in the paramters >> >from an inquiry (even if the clock drifts). >> Yeah, I call it device database :). > >Should we keep the kernel inquiry interface? The kernel inside inquiry >cache is a nice thing and works in the background like a charm :) You mean HCI_INQUIRY ioctl, right ? I'm not sure about that one. We'll certainly keep inquiry cache. Cache doesn't really depend on ioctl. >What about the idea to integrate the inquiry into the library or into >the Bluetooth master daemon. I don't see a need for forwarding inquiry results from a daemon. It can be done in a simple way in the kernel, just like I explained in prev emails (ie kernel parsing hci_inquiry command). >> At least you're not saying - lets combine 'ifconfig', 'route', 'ip', 'iptables', 'netstat', >> into a single tool :). > >You always hit me with this point, but what about "netstat -r" and >"netstat -i". Some things can be done with two different tools, but from >the kernel side they are all the same. Sure. Sometimes it makes sense. hcitool dev shows device list for example. Max