Re: Config Mgmt Proposal V2

Steve Osselton

Hi Trevor,

Good stuff. Some comments:

- Are we assuming that the registry is unique to EdgeX ? If not (i.e. potentially shared with other software
systems), then perhaps all settings should be scoped at the top level to "edgex".

- Why "efx' and not just "core"

- Think also need "export" as a high level category, as like devices in the future may be multiple instances.

- Presuming that everything under "devices" is a device instance name as may be deploying multiple instances
of the same device type.

- If have a typed category "devices" then naming things "device-xxx" under this seems like a device too far,
i.e can just be devices/mqtt-xxx etc.

- Might be worth considering allowing device instance names to hierarchical. Recently looked at a buildings
management system, where all devices were scoped based on location i.e. "building5/floor3/conf_room_1/heating controller".
Having devices in a flat structure is not going to scale and does not support deployment specific device hierarchy.

Cheers Steve.

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 23:28, <Trevor.Conn@...> wrote:

Hi folks -- I've attached version 2 of the configuration proposal which has edits based on received comments to V1 and also our discussions in the Core Working Group meetings. In the section on versioning, I've tried to align with the proposal regarding releases and versioning being circulated by Jim White.

I look forward to any comments you may have.

Trevor Conn
Senior Principal Software Engineer
Dell Technologies | IoT DellTech
Round Rock, TX  USA

Technical Director
IOTech Systems Ltd.

Join to automatically receive all group messages.