feat: add support for introduction via CoRE Link Format #29
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
relu91
approved these changes
Oct 25, 2022
hyperloris
approved these changes
Oct 25, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi everyone!
This PR adds support for the CoRE Link Format introduction method (see https://w3c.github.io/wot-discovery/#introduction-core-rd-sec), exposing the
/.well-known/wotresource as a single link under/.well-known/core(see RFC 6690).I integrated the route into the
WellKnownControllercontroller and generalized the documentation a bit, covering both/.well-known/wotand/.well-known/core. Let me know if there is anything that should be changed :)(Using this introduction method for HTTP does not make as much sense as it does for CoAP, since HTTP does not support multicast. However, it is a feature currently at risk in the Discovery specification, therefore I thought it would be nice if there was one (additional) implementation 🙂)
(Partially?) resolves #20.