Skip to content

Application Layer API Meeting on August 17, 2016

Martine Lenders edited this page Aug 18, 2016 · 3 revisions

Agenda

  1. Agenda Bashing
  2. Goals and Priorities
  3. Naming of the API
  4. Detailed API-discussion:
    1. IP-based transport layer with datagram-based communication (IP raw / UDP)
    2. IP-based transport layer with sequence-based communication (TCP)
  5. Future extension
    1. Asynchronous event handling: External vs. native support
    2. Options
    3. Per packet configuration

Meeting Details

Attendees

  • Alexander Aring [eintopf]
  • Cenk Gündoghan
  • Kaspar Schleiser
  • Martine Lenders (Chair)
  • Peter Kietzmann
  • Simon Brummer

Protocol

  • Peter
  • Simon

Goals / Priorities

  1. No need for dynamic memory allocation
  2. User friendliness
  3. Simplicity
  4. Efficiency (at both front- and backend)
  5. Easy to implement for network stacks / portability

Naming of the API

  • Pro `conn:
    • Name was picked to differ from the old sockets because it isn't socket
  • Con conn:
    • conn basically behaves like sockets (just look at the function-calls)
    • New-comers might search for "something like sockets" anyway
    • Name change would show API change better and ultimately would be less confusing for users of conn
  • Result: sock as name for the new API
  • Side discussion: Documenting API changes
    • Wiki does not work, because it is forgotten after creation
    • Documentation via a dedicated README file is better

Detailed API-discussion

IP-based transport layer with datagram-based communication (IP raw / UDP)

  • Reference API
  • sock_udp_create/sock_udp_close good as is
  • Getter (sock_udp_get_local/sock_udp_get_remote) stay because they don't hurt and are needed for socket wrapper implementation
  • Setter: easier and more convenient to create new sock instead
  • sock_udp_recv and sock_udp_recvfrom:
    • Order of parameters of sock_udp_recvfrom confusing with that name
    • Static inline in API definition not nice
    • Result:
      • original sock_udp_recv should be removed
      • sock_udp_recvfrom renamed to sock_udp_recv
  • sock_udp_send and sock_udp_sendto:
    • There are three sensible use-cases for sock_udp_sendto
      1. sock != NULL, sock is connected, and remote == NULL
      2. sock != NULL, sock is connected, and remote != NULL
      3. sock == NULL and remote != NULL
    • Currently only convenient function for 1., why not for 3.?
    • Also again: static inline in API definition
    • Result:
      • original sock_udp_send should be removed
      • sock_udp_sendto renamed to sock_udp_send

IP-based transport layer with sequence-based communication (TCP)

/* Connections:
 * (Only port required for local; and even that only in special cases) */
sock_tcp_connect(sock_tcp_t *sock, sock_tcp_ep_t *remote, uint16_t local_port);
sock_tcp_disconnect(sock_tcp_t *sock);

/* Listening Socket / Queue */
sock_tcp_listen(sock_tcp_queue_t *queue, sock_tcp_ep_t *local,
                sock_tcp_t[] queue_array, unsigned queue_len);
sock_tcp_stop_listen(sock_tcp_queue_t *queue);
  • later additions: something like tcp_listen_dynamic, as as passing the whole queue as parameter is not suitable for servers with lots of RAM (portability)
  • sock_tcp_accept needs adaptation to new object types: sock_tcp_accept(sock_tcp_queue_t *queue, sock_tcp_t **sock)
  • rename sock_tcp_send/_recv to sock_tcp_write/_read; better suitable to semantics of streams

Future extension

Asynchronous event handling: External vs. native support

5.1 Asynchronous event handling: External vs. native support

  • Callbacks due to questionable context not suitable
  • Additional functions for external async event handling are moved to later discussion.

Options

  • getter/setter functions added later
  • options before bind might need additional parameters for create function
    • only option thinkable at the moment is something like SO_REUSEADDR
    • solvable by flag field in create function

Per packet configuration

  • datagram-based stuff needs per packet configuration option (checksum, etc because 6Lo-NHC)
  • for now, no decision
  • possible solutions:
    • could be solved with options setting before sending
    • message based send as proposed in RFC 3542
Clone this wiki locally
You can’t perform that action at this time.