Re: [PATCH 2/4] Use stored device name (if any) instead of EIR data

Anderson Lizardo
2010-12-27T15:33:47Z

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Johan Hedberg <johan.hedberg@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010, Anderson Lizardo wrote:
>> > if the variable name is set
>> > than your could would skip eir name completely while the code did
>> > actually use the eir name, probably the eir name is updated more
>> > frequently so it is probably the most updated one and we should in
>> > fact update the storage if they don't match.
>>
>> I could not find on spec any mention that the "complete" EIR name may
>> change.
>
> It also doesn't say that it will not change. So the safe thing would be
> not to make any assumption about its permanence, right?

Agreed. I'll adapt this patch in a attempt to at least simplify the
current logic.

> Naturally the user of the remote device might change is name (if the
> remote device has such a feature) and then the EIR data would change
> too. Note that even if there's a name in storage it doesn't mean that
> it's from the same discovery session. It might be from a previous
> discovery session a long time ago and the user of the remote device
> might have changed its name since then. So imho a complete name in an
> EIR should always override whatever is in storage.

Ok, I'll keep this semantics but try to simplify the current logic.

> For the case of shortened names I don't think there's an indisputably
> right answer. The question is what is better: that which is "complete"
> or that which is more recent. I've got the feeling that the complete
> version would be better for the user, but someone might of course
> disagree with this.

For now, I'll keep the current (from master) behavior of only storing
complete EIR names and using the stored name in favor of the shortened
one. My intent is not to change behavior unless there is some need to
do so.

Regards,
--
Anderson Lizardo
OpenBossa Labs - INdT
Manaus - Brazil