If the perception is that oBIX 1.1 requires large processors and memory, then we need to (a) confirm that is not the case, then (b) decide how to evangelize that to the market. It could just be that is the propaganda
being put out by the people who stand to gain by users choosing a different approach than oBIX. It could be that because the main implementation of oBIX is Niagara AX, which typically runs on fairly beefy hardware, people assume that is the only way oBIX
can be done. But we’ve done an implementation that runs in around 100KB, which uses oBIX (binary encoding) for reading and writing values. It’s a limited form of oBIX, but certainly disproves the notion that oBIX 1.1 requires a larger machine.
Craig
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Considine, Toby
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:35 AM
To:
Subject: [obix] Issues in Scope Creep
Some feedback from the HayStack conference was that being compliant with oBIX 1.1 was going to require large processors and memory. Without descending into whether that is or is not true, and without pondering
what these thoughts not raised in comments are based on, It is a real perception.
I am personally frustrated with oBIX, always have been, because it does not support tome of the queries similar to those I posited in my last post. On the other hand, we need to make it clearly unambiguous that
a simple service exposing a handful of oBIX points can be compliant on the smallest system.
tc
"When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us."
-- Alexander Graham Bell
Toby Considine
Chair, OASIS oBIX TC
Editor, OASIS EMIX, Energy Interoperation
Campus Services Information Technology
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Email:
Toby.Considine@ unc.edu
Phone: (919)962-9073
http://www.oasis-open.org
http://www.NewDaedalus.com
