Re: Config Mgmt Proposal V2
Dell Customer Communication
Hi Steve – Replying to your questions below.
· I think our assumption is that yes, the registry is specific to EdgeX since it is inside of the security boundary.
· The “exf” prefix was brought up on last week’s Core WG call and was suggested because the LF apparently has a trademark on using this term as it applies to EdgeX. Tony also wanted something short, so there it is.
· “export” as high level category – I would suggest we let some of the discussions / direction in the Application WG mature a bit, but this could be where we put their configuration. I think the current export services should stay under efx, partly because I don’t see them moving out of the mono-repo and operating independently.
· w/r/t your points on the “devices” section, this is totally your group’s call. We’ve decided that device services will bootstrap their own config, and they need a bucket in which to do that so we proposed “devices”. However you’d like to structure the configuration underneath is fine with me as this is independent of anything the config-seed will be doing.
From: Steve Osselton [mailto:steve@...]
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.
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 23:28, <Trevor.Conn@...> wrote:
IOTech Systems Ltd.