Unified MQTT Topic and Payload structure

[jaxer]

Is there an interest in unifying topic/payload across MTConnect Agent implementations?

I.e. if we take Availability then it would look quite different in cppagent compared to MTConnect-Agent-MQTT-Relay

MTConnect.net also has mqttFormat: Flat option which brings even more variations, but makes it compatible with IoT Core 7-slashes limitation. I cannot find in-depth documentation about "Flat" format, but regular one is nicely documented.

As far as i know, cppagent only has hierarchical topic structure, which makes it hard to use against IoT Core.

I believe payloads are also slightly different.

Would it make sense to stick to one format in both repos?

cc @PatrickRitchie

[wsobel]

Yea. It would be useful to have a reference topic structure and payload. We should discuss in the agent WG. For the reference agent we are also creating another sink that has a flattened structure because of the limitations of mqtt. We will have some more info on that soon. BestW(Sent from mobile)On Jun 8, 2023, at 07:39, Aleksandr Smirnov ***@***.***> wrote: Is there an interest in unifying topic/payload across MTConnect Agent implementations? I.e. if we take Availability then it would look quite different in cppagent compared to MTConnect-Agent-MQTT-Relay MTConnect.net also has mqttFormat: Flat option which brings even more variations, but makes it compatible with IoT Core 7-slashes limitation. I cannot find in-depth documentation about "Flat" format, but regular one is nicely documented. As far as i know, cppagent only has hierarchical topic structure, which makes it hard to use against IoT Core. I believe payloads are also slightly different. Would it make sense to stick to one format in both repos? cc @PatrickRitchie —Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[jaxer]

Sounds good. It looks like I would not be able to attend next Agent WG though. Hope you can raise it there. Would be interesting to know what Patrick/TrakHound thinks of an idea or if i can help somehow.

[dwickelhaus]

I will bring it up in the next meeting. Dave Wickelhaus From: Aleksandr Smirnov ***@***.***> Sent: Friday, June 9, 2023 8:12 AM To: mtconnect/cppagent_dev ***@***.***> Cc: Subscribed ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [mtconnect/cppagent_dev] Unified MQTT Topic and Payload structure (Issue #275) Sounds good. It looks like I would not be able to attend next Agent WG though. Hope you can raise it there. Would be interesting to know what Patrick/TrakHound thinks of an idea or if i can help somehow. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#275 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AC4DQ4JE2VL6YJUQA2FTMSDXKMHKVANCNFSM6AAAAAAY7MXX3M>. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>>