From: Emil Lenngren <emil.lenngren@gmail.com>
To: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@gmail.com>
Cc: Bluez mailing list <linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Flag for specifying write type to WriteValue in gatt-api.
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 18:46:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAO1O6sdp8j+DkawuMcR_X27Dt1VDyO_zc=cmQcYraea7oN=pLg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABBYNZJ8hqJph3DgFBdTPBpD5eqSvMHCsrwvNZx3z5v9Fbu3Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Luiz,
Den tors 31 jan. 2019 kl 18:03 skrev Luiz Augusto von Dentz
<luiz.dentz@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi Emil,
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 6:19 PM Emil Lenngren <emil.lenngren@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was looking through the quite lengthy discussion at
> > https://github.com/WebBluetoothCG/web-bluetooth/issues/238 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?
/Emil
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-31 17:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-31 16:15 Flag for specifying write type to WriteValue in gatt-api 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 publicly 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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAO1O6sdp8j+DkawuMcR_X27Dt1VDyO_zc=cmQcYraea7oN=pLg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=emil.lenngren@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luiz.dentz@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).