Re: Programmatic and security models for IoT

On Fri, 2015-02-06 at 15:21 +0000, Tim Coote wrote:
> > On 6 Feb 2015, at 14:50, Valerio Bellizzomi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 12:10 +0000, Tim Coote wrote:
> >> I’m also tracking js, but I’m not a huge fan of such poor typing - Flow seems to be an approach to addressing this.
> >> I like your anecdotes of adopting the technologies.
> >> 
> >> Thanks for those links. Like many that I’ve seen, there seems to be an emphasis on ‘happy path’ coding. IoT is a really hostile compute environment:
> >> - connections are very flakey
> > 
> > 
> > where connections are flaky I would expect something like DTN.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delay-tolerant_networking
> > 
> > 
> Actually, the flaky comms was something that I considered well addressed by E’s distributed computing model (http://www.skyhunter.com/marcs/ewalnut.html#SEC18), which, to my mind, puts about the right amount of awareness of the potential failures into the mind of the developer (ie she has to consider failure of any remote access), while not exposing the very difficult challenges of unknown failures (eg the work of Waterken and COVR assure less fragile systems.)

well the worst that can happen is that the connection is absent and you
have to collect data for later transmission. this has been addressed in
dtn too.


> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> cap-talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk



_______________________________________________
cap-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk