| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
>> The only way to be sure of that is to write your own replacement for HAL. |
| 3 |
>> ;) |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> That might not be a bad idea.... |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I never agreed with the implementation of hal. An abstract layer sounds good, |
| 9 |
> but why must it abstract ALL hardware? Most software already knows what type |
| 10 |
> of devices it is going to use, so that software should either do it's own |
| 11 |
> abstraction, or a utility library should do it, but be limited to what devices |
| 12 |
> it deals with. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Most devices fall into one of two groups: storage and I/O. Auto-mounters do |
| 15 |
> not care about your keyboard, whereas X needs to know about your monitor, |
| 16 |
> card, keyboard, mouse. Why does hal try and abstract both? Seems silly to me. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> One could also argue that the developer's state of mind is reflected in the |
| 19 |
> chosen method of configuration - xml files. This just defies all |
| 20 |
> understanding. Apart from the fact that real-world xml is almost unreadable, |
| 21 |
> the conditions that make xml useful are simply not present in hal... |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> xml works well when you have system A talking to system B and neither A nor B |
| 24 |
> (nor user C) know in advance exactly what the other is. They might not even |
| 25 |
> know much about the data schema being used, so that metadata is in the xml. |
| 26 |
> This is so completely not the case with hal on a local machine, that it defies |
| 27 |
> description why the dev thought it might be useful. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I can't argue with any of that, which is why I decided to quote it in |
| 30 |
full - it's worth |
| 31 |
repeating. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
It seems xml is the fashion with certain programmers. Totally |
| 34 |
unnecessary. :( |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Be lucky, |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Neil |
| 40 |
http://www.neiljw.com |
Archives