reflect official 2.0 API

[petrklus]

.. any plans to do this one? https://github.com/lifx/lifx-protocol-docs

[mpapi]

Hey, thanks for reaching out.

Do you mean:

(1) do I plan to support the existing feature set for 2.0 bulbs?

or (2) do I plan to extend the feature set to cover more of the features described in that document?

If it's (1), there is already support on a branch called 2.0 -- see near the top of README.md where it says "Support for 2.0 is on a branch". Your mileage may vary, but I've been using what support is there for a while now at home without any issues, and I do plan on eventually merging this into master.

If it's (2), I'm open to doing that. Are there specific things you're looking for?

[petrklus]

Hi Matt,

Thanks for the quick reply! My main question was regarding re-aligning with
the official 2.0 API documentation - I was assuming that being of an early
release than the official API, your 2.0 is still reverse-engineered. Is
that not correct?

I am personally after very basic stuff - simple, local REST API to change
colour of my bulbs (the API should also verify that the colour change
happened etc.)

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Matt Papi notifications@github.com wrote:

Hey, thanks for reaching out.

Do you mean:

(1) do I plan to support the existing feature set for 2.0 bulbs?

or (2) do I plan to extend the feature set to cover more of the features
described in that document?

If it's (1), there is already support on a branch called 2.0 -- see near
the top of README.md where it says "Support for 2.0 is on a branch". Your
mileage may vary, but I've been using what support is there for a while now
at home without any issues, and I do plan on eventually merging this into
master.

If it's (2), I'm open to doing that. Are there specific things you're
looking for?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#4 (comment).

[mpapi]

Ah, got it, thanks for clarifying.

I can definitely take a closer look at that doc and see what turns up. I'd encourage you to mess around with what's currently there on the 2.0 branch -- my hope is that it's usable to you in its current form, and that if the protocol doc does reveal anything, it won't require much (if any) change to the existing library interface.

[petrklus]

Ok, great! Will take a look!

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Matt Papi notifications@github.com wrote:

Ah, got it, thanks for clarifying.

I can definitely take a closer look at that doc and see what turns up. I'd
encourage you to mess around with what's currently there on the 2.0 branch
-- my hope is that it's usable to you in its current form, and that if the
protocol doc does reveal anything, it won't require much (if any) change to
the existing library interface.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#4 (comment).