MBIM-Proxy
Bjørn Mork
bjorn at mork.no
Sat Jan 25 09:54:27 PST 2014
I agree. There is no reason to hijack existing services. Just create a new one.
Might be an interesting test of the MBIM registry too. Will they accept new entries from nonmembers?
Bjørn
Aleksander Morgado <aleksander at lanedo.com> wrote:
>On 25/01/14 03:16, Greg Suarez wrote:
>>>> It looks like I'm going to need to either modify mbim_device_open()
>to
>>>> > > accept a flags parameter to specify whether to use the proxy.
>Would it
>>> > be
>>>> > > better to create a new function mbim_device_proxy_open() or
>should we
>>> > force
>>>> > > the change on existing clients?
>>> >
>>> > A new method is better. What I'm not sure is what it should look
>like.
>>> > Is it better a method explicitly specifying that the proxy will be
>used,
>>> > or otherwise a more generic method (e.g.
>mbim_device_proxy_open_full())
>>> > where we just start accepting a set of flags, like libqmi does?
>>> >
>>> >
>> I'm almost to the point where I would try to get it compiling...
>except I'm
>> trying to figure out
>> how to pass the file path from the client to the proxy. I was
>thinking
>> about using one of the
>> reserved BASIC_CONNECT CIDs (17,18) to pass along the file path.
>What do
>> you think?
>> Maybe Bjorn has an opinion on this too?
>
>A completely new service, defined by us, would be a good idea. It
>wouldn't be a 'real' service, as the device will not know anything
>about
>it, but from client-side it will look as any other service.
More information about the libmbim-devel
mailing list