Re: [RFCv3] Document P2P dbus interfaces

[Denis Kenzior <denkenz@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1381 bytes --]

Hi Andrew,

>> Station.Disconnect does not affect WSC state FYI.  It can't since
>> Station doesn't even know about the ongoing WSC process until after
>> station_connect_network is invoked.  So in that respect we'd be
>> completely consistent.
> 
> What I meant is that Disconnect() can cancel your station connection
> attempt at any point, while with Peer.Disconnect() you're going to
> have to be more careful for no reason.

You will have to explain that then, because I don't get it?  How is 
Peer.Disconnect any different?  Your 'Peer' state doesn't change to 
connecting until after WSC runs.  And if we become a GO, then things 
become even more funny since we can only send invites, not actually 
initiate a connection.  So all these methods become somewhat irrelevant. 
  In fact, I wonder if we should be removing the WSC interface when we 
become the GO and adding another one for performing invitations.

> I was just noting they're not happening on different interfaces.

Of course.  That's because P2P_CLIENT is just a station iftype under the 
hood in the kernel with some extra stuff bolted on.  But we knew that ;)

Maybe what we should do is just implement the bare minimum client side 
API, learn from it and assume that whatever API we come up with now will 
likely not survive when we start implementing GO side.

Regards,
-Denis