info at steffenvogel.de
Mon Jul 19 17:47:16 CEST 2010
Am Sonntag, den 18.07.2010, 21:11 +0200 schrieb Justin Otherguy:
> so, basically we have two parts:
> - header info: mime-type + protocol version 1) + access token
> - request paramaters:
> - identification of the sensor and controller:
> - Flukso:
> - "sensor" (references the ucid, correct?)
> - there seems to be no keyword to reference the controller / flukso meter, yet - correct?
> - VZ:
> - "ucid" identifies the sensor -> I suggest switching to "sensor" here; like flukso and more readable than "ucid"
> - "uuid" identifies the controller -> I suggest switching to "meter" here; this is more readable than "uuid" and more precise than "user id"
Actually, we do not use ucids or uuids. These are only identifiers to
identify a channel (aka meter, sensor) or a user.
Some weeks ago, i talked to Florian Ziegler. We came to an understanding
of the following definitions:
As Volkszaehler seems to become a more generally oriented framework, we
do not only have meters.
Our current implementation knows about the general term "channel". For
which we have implemented two diffrent channel types:
- meters (power, water, gas, etc.)
- sensors (temperature, pressure, humidity, etc.)
> - reading/count: we've discussed that one already; should not be the number of pulses since the last request, but the total number of requests; Steffen asked a very good question here: what happens after a reboot of the controller or any other event that would cause the counter to restart at 0: I don't think it's a big issue to detect this and take care of it while reading the values from the db. I can only think of one tricky situation: the interval between two data points in the diagram is greater than the interval between two reboots/counter resets; I don't think that should be a real world issue, should it?
> >> And how do we want to save this value (EEPROM vs. RAM?).
> speaking of AVR net io: we'll have to find out - I don't know yet; EEPROM would be the place, I suppose (RAM: doesn't survive a reboot; SD: in most cases not available);
> Flukso: shouldn't be a big deal :-)
Ok, this storage question seems to be solved.
> - "unit":
> I just understood the different approaches we had; so far we (VZ) are transmitting pulse counts that are calculated into consumptions later on; that's why we need to know the meter's resolution on the server side; I can't see any disadvantage of switching to the flukso approach here: transmitting the consumption together with the unit. Can someone else? Otherwise: let's get rid of ours!
I agree to Justins argumentation. But that would need an configuration
on the controller side. Without an Webfrontend this could become quite
The setup should be as easy as possible.
> - "interval":
> we don't have that at all so far; what's the idea behind transmitting that as well?
We also have an interval parameter. In our backend, its called "groupBy"
and should take one of these values: year, month, week, day, hour,
minute or second.
Attention Justin, i assume you are mixing both API parts.
The API call you pasted above is just for Frontend->Backend.
> 1) in our api reference  we currently have the version information as one of the regular request parameters; I don't mind switching to that variant; we'll be using http headers anyway
Im a little bit unsatisfied with mixing HTTP Headers and GET Parameters.
Why dont we use GET parameters at all? Sometimes it could be quite hard
to send custom HTTP headers. Especially when we have to use an framework
in the future which doesn't support this (Ethersex, Chumby etc..).
Or, whats about debugging capabilities? Wasn't that easy to just add an
additional GET paramter to your browsers addressbar?
custom HTTP headers?
> 2) I never liked the idea of using uuids to identify sensor as I always supposed this would mean that you would have to include all sensor uuids when you wanted to retrieve all sensor data for one controller; in that case I would have preferred to only transmit one uuid (the controller one); having uuids for the controller _and_ the sensors seem to give us the best of both worlds -> I like that
Ok, I can understand your concerns. Appending about 3*36 chars to your
URL takes about 110 bytes. The maximum length of an URL isnt defined or
limited by reference. Practically both browser and clientside supporting
URLs with an total lenth of around 2KB. I think this is not an issue of
It's more an issue of usability. Especially for us, the developers :p
I also prefer the idea of grouping channels. But i dont know why to
group them into physically based "controller-groups".
We already have implemented a grouping feature which is indepedent from
any physical conditions and allows you to group any kind of channel
(tempsensor, watermeter, etc..) in virtual groups.
A user can subscribe to these groups to easily get a "dashboard".
A single channel isnt bound to a single user.
A channel could be part of multiple groups.
A group could be subscribed by multiple users.
Groups could be nested.
This sounds quite complex, i admit. But thats only our backend logic.
Its quite flexible.
I just introduced this schema to be save use of large changes in the
In reality every user mostly just have one group, which is just
subscribed by himself. This group contains for example three powermeters
(one for each phase of an household).
Later on, you may extend your installation. Possibly installing new
meters to your vacation home or adding some temperature sensors.
Now mixing these new meters with the existing ones is unhandy. Now you
are able to to add these new channels to a new group.
But thats only interessting for large installations. For example if you
are an hirer and or hotel manager and have to controll a lot of
> I'm not sure about the syntax; to me it seems best practice would be to have all parameters/values separated by slashes and not to use the "?" and "&" at all - am I wrong? Is this defined at all?
I think thats part of the REST implementation:
Every entity (channel, user, group, data) has its own url:
Adding entities should be done with an HTTP POST request.
Editing entities should be done with an HTTP PULL request.
Deleting entities with an HTTP DELETE request.
If we are using an browser to access the backend we should pass this
request method as an GET parameter:
Thats my interpretation of an RESTful API.
Unfortunatly this requires some webserver configuration or mod_rewrite.
According to our project name "VOLKSzaehler", our code should be easily
to setup from everybody.
mod_rewrite or extended webserver confiration isn't that easy and not
allowed by every discount hoster..
Now lets come to the offtopic part ;)
> BTW: did I mention the barcamp Mathias is planning for October 29th/30th in K'lautern?
> I'll be there; it would be nice if more vz members could arrange to go there as well
Mhh, October i will starting my studies in Aachen. But I will do my very
best to be there.
@Bart: Justin told me that you live in Belgium? What do you think about
to arrive together?
I used the last weeks, and my vacation, to replace our old database
abstraction layer and the object relation model with the new doctrine
beta version. Its a quite interesting project with a lot of potential.
Some key features:
- dbal to a bunch of databases (sqlite, mysql, pgsql, oracle, odbc,
- automatic schema generation and update
- object persistence
Have a look at http://www.doctrine-project.org/
We now make also use of some nice PHP 5.3 feature: namespaces, late
static binding and OOP of course.
Our backend code is now "state of the art" ;)
wow what a novel...
Cell: +49 (176) 96978528
Mail & MSN: info at steffenvogel.de
More information about the volkszaehler-dev