Do you have plans to add the `no-std` feature

[XxChang]

It will be very helpful for embedded rust

[PLeVasseur]

Hi @XxChang! Thanks for your interest.

Could you help me better understand the use case you have for uProtocol in embedded?

An earlier roadmap for uProtocol had deeply-embedded devices in the Automotive, ASIL-D context using SOME/IP to communicate, essentially side-stepping that need for the time. Note the MCU (AUTOSAR Classic) box at the bottom.

But -- that's just one view we had. Curious about your thoughts.

[XxChang]

Thank you for your reply! I'm planning to build a sensor network based on minimq, and the diagram you shared has been a huge inspiration. I had no idea uStreamer could be utilized in this way before.

[PLeVasseur]

Hello again!

A couple of points from my side.

I can see how this use-case could be quite useful then if you're looking to run uProtocol on low-power devices which must be out in the field. Makes sense 👍

• I suppose in your use-case SOME/IP may not be desirable / useful
• What's desired to be done today can be accomplished, but it's not valuable unless you have other parts of your system that are using uProtocol. There was a 2024 SDV Hackathon project which showcased this where they "hand-rolled" communications code on a device running ThreadX to communicate with another device that was using uProtocol proper.

If you'd like the no-std feature to be available, we have weekly meetings where we dig into technical topics. Showing up there could help us better understand your use case and prioritize that work against the other items we're doing. Last time we discussed this there was not a concrete use case for a consumer.

• If you'd like to join the weekly uProtocol meeting you can add the Eclipse SDV Community Calendar here