1 / 20

Sam Knights Rhodes University Supervisors: Dr G. Foster and Prof P. Clayton

A Comparative Study of Two Bluetooth APIs for Implementation in an Automated Wireless Identification System (AWIS). Sam Knights Rhodes University Supervisors: Dr G. Foster and Prof P. Clayton. Presentation Outline. Brief Background and Motivation Methodology Results/Test Applications:

hamlet
Download Presentation

Sam Knights Rhodes University Supervisors: Dr G. Foster and Prof P. Clayton

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Comparative Study of Two Bluetooth APIs for Implementation in an Automated Wireless Identification System (AWIS) Sam Knights Rhodes University Supervisors: Dr G. Foster and Prof P. Clayton

  2. Presentation Outline • Brief Background and Motivation • Methodology • Results/Test Applications: • Windows API • Widcomm API • Discussion • Future Work • Conclusion

  3. Brief Background • Individual animal identification and interaction • Behavioral patterns • GPS, infrared imagery, GSM, satellite • Bluetooth Enabled devices - collars • Transmit information when in range of other animals = “Encounter” • Transfer to Beacons (on trees/ rocks) • Motivation for using Bluetooth: • 10m range, low power and cost, small size • Dynamic nature of networks formed

  4. Project Aims • Investigate Bluetooth APIs • Device connectivity, data-transfer • Limits to APIs flexibility, functionality • Feasibility of extending API • Motivation • No standard API in Bluetooth specification • Only way to compare APIs • “Use tools available directly”…

  5. Methodology - Approach • Iterative development of test applications • Not complex, speed of development • Stages towards AWIS • Simple inquiry, one device then many • Discover who went out of range • Build up Encounter log • Upload onto Beacons (Service Discovery) • Compare each API in terms of functionality provided to complete each stage • Test applications

  6. Iterative Development Methodology Start Stage of System Research AWIS Progress Evaluate Implement Test

  7. Methodology – Materials Software • Pocket PC 2003 SDK, Windows CE • Rapid development, sophisticated IDE • Windows API: Winsock and Virtual Serial Ports • Not “easy or quick”, recommended • Widcomm API • Most widely used, choice of proprietary API • Different approaches to application development • Windows insulate developer • Widcomm protocol layer direct access.

  8. Methodology – Materials Hardware • iPAQ Pocket PC h4150 • Familiar UI, concentrate on software • Active Sync, fast testing of applications • Small, portable • DLink Dongle • Test broadcasting MAC Address • Connect PC to Bluetooth Devices

  9. Methodology – Test Applications • Virtual Serial Ports • Experimented with Terminal Type Application • Connection, data transfer • Winsock • Discover devices and services • Widcomm • Discover devices, L2CAP • Field test – attached iPAQ to front desk • iPAQs running AWIS application • Bluetooth devices switched on • Encounter log written to a file

  10. Results

  11.                     API Comparison - Documentation AWIS GENERAL

  12.                                          API Comparison - Results AWIS GENERAL

  13. API Comparison - Results • Virtual Serial Ports • No device discovery, limited service discovery • Winsock • “Network down” • Widcomm • Choice of stack access: • L2CAP, RFCOMM, SDP, OBEX etc • Device discovery and Service discovery – L2CAP • Information transfer • L2CAP Connection vs OBEX

  14. Discussion • Virtual Serial Ports • Familiar, low-level, no device inquiry functions • Winsock • “Network down” – iPAQ had Widcomm stack • Wrapper class to extend API • Widcomm • Approach allows flexibility and functionality • Simple Device discovery and Service discovery • Extend API only by Encounter Class

  15. Discussion • Test done in CS department • Did the application discover all devices? • Discovery when discovering a problem • Time taken for encounters? • Slow – 10s for inquiry • Information uploaded correctly? • Did AWIS applications interfere with each other?

  16. Discussion • Limitation to Results • No hardware considerations • Experience limited to AWIS application • For developer: Stack incompatibility • IPAQs the way to go? • Sufficient for pilot study – rapid development • GUI not always ideal • Not for actual implementation • Fits into iterative development

  17. Future Work • Could look to some other technologies • ZigBee • Investigate more APIs • Allow more interaction with stack, hardware • Some other possibilities for the AWIS system: • Check employees are doing their job • Monitor human psychological behaviour

  18. Conclusion • Comparing APIs through testing • Valuable to the developer • Result: Widcomm most suitable • Flexible but simple, functionality needed for AWIS • Iterative development, rapid prototyping • AWIS works • Implementation issues overcome • Future work could be done

  19. Questions?

  20. Wireless Projects A. King : Peer-to-peer networking , Data transfer B.Clayton : Scatternets, Ad-hoc networking S. Knights : Application Programming Interfaces BLUETOOTH STACK B. Fox : Custom operating system image

More Related