headers
Iain Hibbert | 9 Mar 2012 20:57

status of OpenOBEX?

Hi

I wonder, what is the status of openobex now?

I see that the code repository at git.kernel.org was never reinstated,
though the project is present and owned by Marcel Holtmann. Then, the
distribution files are no longer available in the www.kernel.org
directory. Neither have any recent releases made it to the sourceforge
hosting site, and the source is no longer at sourceforge. The
www.openobex.org pages are

If I recall, the BlueZ folks have essentially moved on and are focusing on
obexd which handles this directly instead of using openobex, and patches
posted here never seemed to make it into any repository except the
unofficial http://gitorious.org/openobex maintained by Hendrik Sattler.

Is anybody still interested in openobex?  I recall rumours of a 2.0
release..

regards,
iain

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning
Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing 
also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service.
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Hendrik Sattler | 11 Mar 2012 11:10
Picon

Re: status of OpenOBEX?

Hi Iain,

Am Freitag, 9. März 2012, 20:57:48 schrieb Iain Hibbert:
> I wonder, what is the status of openobex now?
> 
> I see that the code repository at git.kernel.org was never reinstated,
> though the project is present and owned by Marcel Holtmann. Then, the
> distribution files are no longer available in the www.kernel.org
> directory. Neither have any recent releases made it to the sourceforge
> hosting site, and the source is no longer at sourceforge. The
> www.openobex.org pages are

...still there but will probably never be updated.
I could host that site on my server but Marcel is owner of this domain.

> If I recall, the BlueZ folks have essentially moved on and are focusing on
> obexd which handles this directly instead of using openobex, and patches
> posted here never seemed to make it into any repository except the
> unofficial http://gitorious.org/openobex maintained by Hendrik Sattler.
> 
> Is anybody still interested in openobex?  I recall rumours of a 2.0
> release..

I am. Obexd is a bluez plugin and bluetooth is its focus is (and the current 
main usage of the OBEX protocol).

However, it is also obvious that openobex has some problems. I will address 
those before releasing 2.0. This will include API changes. I don't know, yet, 
if compatibility with 1.5 will be kept.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christian Zuckschwerdt | 11 Mar 2012 14:28
Favicon

Re: status of OpenOBEX?

Hendrik,

Am 11.03.2012 um 11:10 schrieb Hendrik Sattler:

>> The www.openobex.org pages are
> 
> ...still there but will probably never be updated.
> I could host that site on my server but Marcel is owner of this domain.

I'm hosting the Trac and Marcel's domain forwards there. I though about dropping it for something more
suitable - ideas welcome. Maybe some simple blog package to get information out more quickly?

thanks,
Christian

Grüße,
Christian

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning
Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing 
also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service.
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Iain Hibbert | 14 Mar 2012 15:44

Re: status of OpenOBEX?

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012, Hendrik Sattler wrote:

> > Is anybody still interested in openobex?  I recall rumours of a 2.0
> > release..
>
> I am.

Well, since Hendrik is the main interested party perhaps Marcel could be
convinced to transfer (or redirect) his domain to the gitorius page that
Hendrik maintains?  Either that or just call the openobex project defunct
and fork it with a new name..

> However, it is also obvious that openobex has some problems. I will address
> those before releasing 2.0. This will include API changes. I don't know, yet,
> if compatibility with 1.5 will be kept.

To be honest, any new release (1.6?) with the current changes would be
welcomed

As to the API, then yes I do agree that there are some problems. I would
not choose to use openobex if I were to write an OBEX program, not least
because the documentation is minimal. I have worked on software using
openobex and found that it was really difficult to work with. However, I
don't really have any better ideas :)

iain

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning
Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Hendrik Sattler | 14 Mar 2012 18:51
Picon

Re: status of OpenOBEX?

Am Mittwoch, 14. März 2012, 15:44:01 schrieb Iain Hibbert:
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> > > Is anybody still interested in openobex?  I recall rumours of a 2.0
> > > release..
> > 
> > I am.
> 
> Well, since Hendrik is the main interested party perhaps Marcel could be
> convinced to transfer (or redirect) his domain to the gitorius page that
> Hendrik maintains?  Either that or just call the openobex project defunct
> and fork it with a new name..

I think I will keep the name in any case...

> > However, it is also obvious that openobex has some problems. I will
> > address those before releasing 2.0. This will include API changes. I
> > don't know, yet, if compatibility with 1.5 will be kept.
> 
> To be honest, any new release (1.6?) with the current changes would be
> welcomed

Ok, I will tag the current master branch on Gitorious.

> As to the API, then yes I do agree that there are some problems. I would
> not choose to use openobex if I were to write an OBEX program, not least
> because the documentation is minimal. I have worked on software using
> openobex and found that it was really difficult to work with. However, I
> don't really have any better ideas :)

An updated API will be easier to understand and a bit more object oriented (I
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Hendrik Sattler | 18 Mar 2012 22:31
Picon

Re: status of OpenOBEX?

Hi Iain,

Am Mittwoch, 14. März 2012, 15:44:01 schrieb Iain Hibbert:
> To be honest, any new release (1.6?) with the current changes would be
> welcomed
> 
> As to the API, then yes I do agree that there are some problems. I would
> not choose to use openobex if I were to write an OBEX program, not least
> because the documentation is minimal. I have worked on software using
> openobex and found that it was really difficult to work with. However, I
> don't really have any better ideas :)

For a start, I submitted some additional patches to my master branch.
Can you check them out and do some compile and runtime tests for your BSDs?
If everything goes well, the current state will be version 1.6.

I compile tested it on Linux, Windows cross-compiled on Linux and Windows.

HS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Iain Hibbert | 19 Mar 2012 10:33

Re: status of OpenOBEX?

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012, Hendrik Sattler wrote:

> Hi Iain,
>
> Am Mittwoch, 14. März 2012, 15:44:01 schrieb Iain Hibbert:
> > To be honest, any new release (1.6?) with the current changes would be
> > welcomed
> >
> > As to the API, then yes I do agree that there are some problems. I would
> > not choose to use openobex if I were to write an OBEX program, not least
> > because the documentation is minimal. I have worked on software using
> > openobex and found that it was really difficult to work with. However, I
> > don't really have any better ideas :)
>
> For a start, I submitted some additional patches to my master branch.
> Can you check them out and do some compile and runtime tests for your BSDs?
> If everything goes well, the current state will be version 1.6.
>
> I compile tested it on Linux, Windows cross-compiled on Linux and Windows.

No time to investigate further just now can look at it later, but NetBSD
has SOCK_CLOEXEC but not accept4() .. we have a paccept(2) instead which
also takes a sigmask, like so:

int paccept(int s, struct sockaddr * restrict addr, socklen t * restrict addrlen, const sigset t * restrict
sigmask, int flags);

You could do some autoconfig detection for this but its probably just
simpler to use fcntl all the time..  I mean, the overhead of the extra
syscall is not likely to be significant in this environment, is it?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Unknown | 19 Mar 2012 13:20

Re: status of OpenOBEX?

Hi Iain,

Am 2012-03-19 10:33, schrieb Iain Hibbert:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch, 14. März 2012, 15:44:01 schrieb Iain Hibbert:
>> > To be honest, any new release (1.6?) with the current changes 
>> would be
>> > welcomed
>> >
>> > As to the API, then yes I do agree that there are some problems. I 
>> would
>> > not choose to use openobex if I were to write an OBEX program, not 
>> least
>> > because the documentation is minimal. I have worked on software 
>> using
>> > openobex and found that it was really difficult to work with. 
>> However, I
>> > don't really have any better ideas :)
>>
>> For a start, I submitted some additional patches to my master 
>> branch.
>> Can you check them out and do some compile and runtime tests for 
>> your BSDs?
>> If everything goes well, the current state will be version 1.6.
>>
>> I compile tested it on Linux, Windows cross-compiled on Linux and 
>> Windows.
>
> No time to investigate further just now can look at it later, but 
> NetBSD
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Hendrik Sattler | 19 Mar 2012 18:17
Picon

Re: status of OpenOBEX?

Hi Iain,

Am Montag, 19. März 2012, 10:33:43 schrieb Iain Hibbert:
> No time to investigate further just now can look at it later, but NetBSD
> has SOCK_CLOEXEC but not accept4() .. we have a paccept(2) instead which
> also takes a sigmask, like so:

I updated the master tree to add paccept() support. Please check if it 
compiles.

Thanks,

HS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Iain Hibbert | 19 Mar 2012 22:48

Re: status of OpenOBEX?

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Hendrik Sattler wrote:

> Hi Iain,
>
> Am Montag, 19. März 2012, 10:33:43 schrieb Iain Hibbert:
> > No time to investigate further just now can look at it later, but NetBSD
> > has SOCK_CLOEXEC but not accept4() .. we have a paccept(2) instead which
> > also takes a sigmask, like so:
>
> I updated the master tree to add paccept() support. Please check if it
> compiles.

Yes thats fine (with autoconf and cmake both) and seems to be working ok
on NetBSD so far with obexapp.

btw the CMake build does not have any 'maintainer-clean' target to tidy up

iain
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
_______________________________________________
Openobex-users mailing list
Openobex-users <at> lists.sourceforge.net
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openobex-users
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Hendrik Sattler | 20 Mar 2012 06:37
Picon

Re: status of OpenOBEX?

Iain Hibbert <plunky <at> rya-online.net> schrieb:
>btw the CMake build does not have any 'maintainer-clean' target to tidy
>up

It doesn't because you are supposed to build in a separate build tree that you can clean up with rm -rf. The
source tree stays clean. The autotools do need it due to the source tree pollution by autoreconf.

I.e.will tag version 1.6 this evening. I will also add a separate download directory on my server.

HS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane