Linux-Bluetooth Archive on
 help / Atom feed
From: Emil Lenngren <>
To: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <>
Cc: Bluez mailing list <>
Subject: Re: Flag for specifying write type to WriteValue in gatt-api.
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 18:46:23 +0100
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Hi Luiz,

Den tors 31 jan. 2019 kl 18:03 skrev Luiz Augusto von Dentz
> Hi Emil,
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:19 PM Emil Lenngren <> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was looking through the quite lengthy discussion at
> > on the
> > issue that in Web-Bluetooth, only a single "write value" API is
> > available, causing Web-Bluetooth to decide on its own if Write With
> > Response or Write Without Response should be used, in case both are
> > supported by the characteristic.
> >
> > But in the Bluetooth spec about Write Without Response:
> >
> > "This sub-procedure is used to write a Characteristic Value to a
> > server when the client knows the Characteristic Value Handle and the
> > client does not need an acknowledgement that the write was
> > successfully performed."
> >
> > Basically, it says it's up to the client/application to decide if an
> > acknowledgement is needed or not, and hence it's the app that should
> > decide if Write With or Without Response should be used. The "client"
> > can't mean a bluetooth stack here since it can of course not know if
> > an acknowledgement is needed or not.
> There is a property indicating if write without response is supported
> though, but you are right regarding that not excluding regular write
> so at that point the client would have a choice whether to use it or
> not.
> > I noticed that according to gatt-api.txt, BlueZ has the same
> > limitation in the WriteValue method, in that the stack chooses the
> > write type "arbitrarily" if both write types are supported (or really
> > the Write With Response is chosen, which might cause unwanted
> > latency). Therefore I suggest that an option should be added to the
> > WriteValue method, for example "write-without-response" (bool) to
> > force Write Without Response.
> It gets a bit trickier if the attribute is in fact a control point in
> which case perhaps only write-without-response really works, anyway
> control points are better off using AcquireWrite.
> > Note how iOS has a write type parameter to the write method, and
> > Android has a write type property you set before you execute the
> > write.
> >
> > I see that it might be possible to achieve the same result with
> > AcquireWrite -> write to socket -> release but that wouldn't be a good
> > solution for bluetooth stacks built on top of BlueZ that would like to
> > differentiate between the two write types (such as Web-Bluetooth)
> > since AcquireWrite can fail, for example if two apps write the value
> > at the same time (I guess the lock is exclusive?). It also seems like
> > unnecessary overhead to open and close sockets.
> AcquireWrite is to be used when the app needs exclusive access, like
> control points such as those commonly used for things like DFU, I
> don't think that is your intent here (or is it?) so I guess adding an
> option for WriteValue is probably better. Note though that obviously
> one cannot use such a flag with things like e.g. offset as that is not
> supported which makes the API a little trickier to use but I guess
> that ok given that setting flags is optional.

No DFU etc. wasn't really the intention here.

I guess most (all?) people don't use the offset parameter. The reason
the offset parameter exists in the Prepare Write Request is so that
it's possible to write a long value in several chunks I guess. Anyway,
the solution is to simply disallow offset != 0 and
write-without-response=true at the same time.

By the way, I see "Reliable Write" is also forced/first choice if the
characteristic supports that (even though I think nobody uses it?).
The downside of using Reliable Write over a simple Write Request is
that it requires more packets/overhead so I was thinking that maybe,
to cover all cases, instead of having a bool "write-without-response",
it should be a "write-type" option which can take the values
"reliable-write", "write-with-response" or "write-without-response"
(or use automatic logic like today if the option is not specified).
What do you think?


  reply index

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-01-31 16:15 Emil Lenngren
2019-01-31 17:03 ` Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2019-01-31 17:46   ` Emil Lenngren [this message]
2019-01-31 17:55     ` Luiz Augusto von Dentz
2019-01-31 18:09       ` Emil Lenngren

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='' \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Linux-Bluetooth Archive on

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror linux-bluetooth/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-bluetooth linux-bluetooth/ \
	public-inbox-index linux-bluetooth

Newsgroup available over NNTP:

AGPL code for this site: git clone public-inbox