Today I have a bit tricky question. Imagine a situation when someone has written a custom connector to the network (let's say there are a lot of security features hidden and so on). Now imagine that each application can connect to the network (even IoT Edge Runtime) only through this custom connector (let's say, this connector has implementation of both https and plain MQTT protocols).
Now the issue! According to the documentation here https://github.com/Azure/iotedge/blob/master/doc/networking.md the IoT Edge Runtime connects to the network through moby-engine modified by Microsoft. According to the Microsoft, we cannot get this moby-engine. Moreover, if we use original moby project the support from the Microsoft will be caught off, which is a bad thing. So, we cannot modify moby-engine and make it use this custom connector.
Now the question!
Is it possible (may be I missed something in documentation. Not the first time tbh) to use custom connector with IoT Edge Runtime (no proxy, we need plain MQTT protocol)? If yes, can you explain in details how? If no, what posible features inside Iot Edge Runtime/moby engine can help to use custom connector?
Please ask, if you need more information. I will provide it right away. A similar question was asked by me on Microsoft github. No response from there.
The proposal from #silent pointed me to the correct direction. While reading manuals, how to properly setup a gateway, I once again began to read manual about creating custom modules. This pointed me to have a look at preparing a build environment. This again directed me to the SDK bit.
Honestly speaking, by accident and mostly out of curiosity I clicked the link about porting the SDK to my custom platform. This was the solution in my case https://github.com/Azure/azure-c-shared-utility/blob/master/devdoc/porting_guide.md
I have to mention here two other solutions I walked through:
Proxy server that supports your custom connector/protocol (will
work for cases where you do not need MQTT. However, MQTT websockets
can be used here)
Gateway. This is definitely a good one. Again many thanks to #silent.
Which one will work in your particular case is only up to you to decide.
I study about IoT protocol CoAP, MQTT, LwM2M.
I was able to know a little about CoAP and MQTT.
But I do not know what LwM2M is.
I do not know what's different from CoAP.
I just thought that LwM2M is not a protocol with some format but a system structure using CoAP.
Is that correct?
What is LwM2M and How Can I know more information about LwM2M?
Please someone teach me.
LwM2M (specified by OMA) is a is a protocol group largely built on top of CoAP (specified by the IETF).
LwM2M uses a subset of CoAP's capabilities that fit into an architecture of many small devices registering at a large LwM2M server that manages the devices. It prescribes particular path structures (that numbers are used in paths, and what they mean) that represent the LwM2M object model to allow that unified management.
Compared to "plain CoAP", this limits the scope of what devices can do. Devices can still provide other CoAP functionality on the same server that is not covered by LwM2M. Those limitations allow different vendors to build devices that can interoperate with a different management servers, and LwM2M provides additional specifications for easy deployment (e.g. based on smart cards) that are out of scope for CoAP.
The direct answer can be obtained from the official sites:
CoAP "is a specialized web transfer protocol for use with constrained nodes and constrained networks in the Internet of Things.
The protocol is designed for machine-to-machine (M2M) applications such as smart energy and building automation."
LwM2M "is a device management protocol designed for sensor networks and the demands of a machine-to-machine (M2M) environment. With LwM2M, OMA SpecWorks has responded to demand in the market for a common standard for managing lightweight and low power devices on a variety of networks necessary to realize the potential of IoT."
Basically, we can simplify saying that CoAP was designed to communications between constrained IoT devices and it is very similar to HTTP protocol, which facilitates the developers work, while the LwM2M was designed mainly to manage constrained devices remotely, providing service enablement, for instance. Both protocols are commonly used together.
More information you can find in the following links:
- What is LwM2M? A device management solution for low power M2M
- CoAP functionality expected in a LwM2M system
This is a basic questions. I want to apply to an entry level java developer position with the following requirement:
Familiarity with the Sailpoint Identity IQ standard adapters/connectors
By standard connectors do they basically mean how Sailpoint exchanges data with third party tools? And by adapter do they mean that the adapter pattern would be used? Thanks
This is going to probably appear well after your interview - but to answer the question:
1) Standard adapters/connectors:
SailPoint ships with a "standard" set of connectors which are part of the purchase price there are those ie EPIC which do not ship as part of the standard product and must be enabled. To give you a deeper view into connectors..
Connectivity Methods:
Direct Connectivity - This is where a connector communicates directly to a system using APIs or data-sources. Some advantages of using direct connect are that you don't have to generate or transmit files, and you can be more efficient in processing only things that have changed. Some disadvantages are the they are subject to availability and downtime concerns like any connected system. They are also typically subject to advantages and disadvantages that APIs might impose as well.
Some people also refer to this as an 'online' method of connectivity.
File-Based Connectivity - This is where a connector reads from a snapshot of data presented in a file, rather than connecting directly to the system. Some advantages of using a file, are that files are portable, easily inspected for data issues, and not typically subject to availability. Some disadvantages are that files are usually processed in their entirety, and may require processing or transformation in order to work effectively.
Some people also refer to this as a 'decoupled' or 'offline' method of connectivity.
Connector Implementations
Source-Specific Implementation - These are connectors built with a specific target-system in mind. These typically use specific APIs targeted to the system they are integrated with. Because the systems and APIs are known, these typically require less configurations to get working.
Examples of these are Active Directory, Workday, Salesforce, SAP, etc.
General Implementation - These are general-purpose connectors which can be used to connect to a variety of sources or systems. These tend to be more flexible in general, but typically do require a bit more setup and configuration to meet needs.
Examples of these are Web Services, SCIM, JDBC, Delimited Files, etc.
Custom Implementation - These are completely custom connectors and tailored to the system and API of your choice. This approach offers the most flexibility of all connector options, however making custom connectors is definitely a development-level activity, and is not to be taken lightly. The code written for custom connectors is maintained and supported by the customer who owns the connector.
Examples of these are custom in-house applications, etc.
Understanding these connector implementations is important, because if a source-specific implementation isn't available, another general or custom connector implementation may be used instead.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
Is there any decent alternative to OPC-UA as a solution for accessing process data of a system composed of various PLCs? Something that is platform independent and can "speak" with products of different brands ?
I've heard of MQTT but it seems to be much more like a transport protocol, and only that. It does not have all the higher level stuff like the information modeling, etc.
Thanks for your help!
OPC is the only standard way for communicating with PLCs. OPC DA is the old alternative. OPC UA is the new one and recommended, nowadays. Before OPC there was just proprietary protocols and shared protocols like Modbus, but they are just lower level transport protocols as you've mentioned.
OPC UA is pretty unique with the Information Modeling, especially. With that feature it is enabling new communication possibilities for higher level systems and applications as well, in addition to plain PLC communication.
Note that some PLCs can also talk OPC UA natively, which makes it a standard in that way.
And OPC UA is really standardised as IEC 62541, ensuring that it's independent.
Update 17/07/19: OPC UA is now defined also as the Industry 4.0 Communication as I wrote in my recent article.
Update 20/05/05: OPC UA version 1.04 defines Pub/Sub alternatives, using UDP for secure data multicast in local networks and AMQP/MQTT for secure broker based data & event delivery to cloud systems. Version 1.04 also defines a WebSocket/JSON protocol alternative, which enable easier usage in web applications. None of these are broadly available, yet, but hopefully will become popular in 2020-21 time frame.
OPC-UA has some very interesting parts, especially concerning information modelling, interoperability and the publish/subscribe pattern.
However, even though it's a standard in the strictest of senses, I've found that to use it in a webapp you need to code a gateway server. Because it uses raw sockets and a binary (although fast) serialization protocol.
This is why we created an alternative protocol called Woopsa at my university. We decided to base it on HTTP + JSON. We tried to make a protocol that's similar to OPC-UA: it has Information Modelling, publish/subscribe, and even multi-requests. It's all completely open-source.
We've just released version 1.0 here: http://www.woopsa.org/
You can get the source code directly on our GitHub: https://github.com/woopsa-protocol/Woopsa
Basically, our protocol is just a standardized RESTful API using HTTP+JSON. For example, you can read a value by making a GET /woopsa/read/Temperature and it will reply you in JSON:
{"Value":24.2,"Type":"Real"}
You can also get the object tree by using the meta word, for example: GET /woopsa/meta/ which will give you something like that:
{
"Name":"WeatherStation",
"Properties": [
{"Name":"Temperature","Type":"Real"},
...
],
"Methods": { ... }
"Items": [
"Thermostat",
...
]
}
In a practical industrial application, MQTT is not an alternative to OPC-UA. The original goal of OPC, back in the '90s, was to provide a standard communication mechanism and data model that would provide interoperability among clients and servers that implemented the specification. OPC-UA expands and generalizes the data model and the communication without giving up on that core goal. In order to do this, the standard must specify things like the format of a time stamp, the encoding of data types, historical values, alarms, etc.
MQTT is a message transport layer that does not provide interoperability by design. It does not stipulate the format of the payload, does not specify how one transmits a particular data type, timestamp, value, hierarchy, or anything else that would allow an application to understand the data being transmitted. You can create a valid MQTT server that emits XML, JSON, or custom formatted data that is plain-text, encrypted, base-64 encoded, or anything else you like. The only way a client application can interact with your server is by knowing in advance what data format the server will produce and accept.
OPC-UA has recently introduced a publish/subscribe mechanism to improve bandwidth utilization, reducing a communication bandwidth advantage that MQTT currently offers. At the same time, the MQTT specification will need to grow to specify data formats in order to promote interoperability. Expect to see a convergence of functionality between MQTT and OPC-UA, mostly MQTT growing to meet OPC-UA.
MQTT is a much simpler implementation at the moment, which holds advantages for embedded and resource-constrained systems. The addition of a data modeling specification would act to reduce this advantage.
The bottom line is that OPC-UA is for interoperability and MQTT is for simple custom communication. MQTT needs to grow before it can be an alternative to OPC-UA.
MQTT is growing in popularity as the protocol of choice for I.o.T. It does have its short comings - however its simplicity is often seen as a strength whereas OPCUA carries the overhead of design by committee.
If you need to combine the two, you may like to consider trying our simple gateway mqtt2opcua
Unserver is a product designed to solve the exact problem described in this question.
It is capable of talking to different field devices and provide a unified HTTP API on
top of them.
It integrates with devices via Modbus RTU, but other common protocols will be added in the future.
In short, first you configure a data 'tag' like this:
{
"name": "tank1",
"device": "plc1",
"properties": [
{
"name": "level",
"address": "HR0",
"type": "numeric",
"raw": "int16"
}
]
}
Then you can work with the tag using an API endpoint created automatically:
GET http://localhost:9000/tags/tank1
{
data:{
level: 1
}
}
Check out the documentation for more info.
The product is free for evaluation and non-commercial use.
Disclaimer: I'm part of the team. Hope this is useful.
I just released another approach to this challenge. The project is called ELTRA IoT.
It's cloud service as mediator and end-user components that act as device representation or operator interface (https://www.eltra.ch/)
Primarily, it was created to simplify integration of CANopen devices with smartphone applications, but I quickly realized, that it can be used for any IoT project.
This project is inspired mainly by CANopen and FDT architecture.
The first idea was to deliver the solution, that allows bringing your device into internet using web standards like REST/JSON (avoid binary protocols, gateways, firewall, proxies issues and all this staff, that makes this whole process more complicated) within short time.
Web standard like HTTP/REST/JSON/WebSocket plays well with all operating systems and architectures and allows also easy end-user app integration in any modern language.
Main features:
Same API both sides (device and operator)
CANopen CiA-311 data model representation
Nodes, object dictionary, index, subindex, strong data typing, ranges etc. You know CANopen = you are at home
History data
RPC support - custom commands execution
Simple cloud service API https://eltra.ch/docs
Standard authentication scheme
SSL encryption
Cross-platform solution for Windows, Linux, Android, IPhone, Raspberry PI
SDK is available as open source on Github:
https://github.com/eltra-ch/eltra-sdk
At the moment, the library is implemented in .NET Standard and tested with Windows, Linux (x64 and ARM32), Android, IPhone.
Nuget package is available under:
https://www.nuget.org/packages/Eltra.Connector/
If the complexity of OPC UA is an overkill and Woopsa doesn't fit your design, then ELTRA could be an alternative.
disclaimer: This project is part of my masterthesis and eltra.ch service is my privately held website
I have a project that involves a backend communicating with numerous clients. I am searching for the optimal protocol to use. Is MQTT appropriate for my project?
Mqtt is best suited for projects involving numerous users. The objective is to provide a light-weight protocol optimized around a publish/subscribe model. It is the perfect protocol for your project because it will disseminate information throughout your user-base more rapidly than most other protocols.