| 1 |
On Sunday 17 January 2010 22:14:06 Neil Walker wrote: |
| 2 |
> Joerg Schilling wrote: |
| 3 |
> > how do we |
| 4 |
> > prevent that DeviceKit will become the same desaster as hald? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> The only way to be sure of that is to write your own replacement for HAL. |
| 7 |
> ;) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
That might not be a bad idea.... |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I never agreed with the implementation of hal. An abstract layer sounds good, |
| 12 |
but why must it abstract ALL hardware? Most software already knows what type |
| 13 |
of devices it is going to use, so that software should either do it's own |
| 14 |
abstraction, or a utility library should do it, but be limited to what devices |
| 15 |
it deals with. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Most devices fall into one of two groups: storage and I/O. Auto-mounters do |
| 18 |
not care about your keyboard, whereas X needs to know about your monitor, |
| 19 |
card, keyboard, mouse. Why does hal try and abstract both? Seems silly to me. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
One could also argue that the developer's state of mind is reflected in the |
| 22 |
chosen method of configuration - xml files. This just defies all |
| 23 |
understanding. Apart from the fact that real-world xml is almost unreadable, |
| 24 |
the conditions that make xml useful are simply not present in hal... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
xml works well when you have system A talking to system B and neither A nor B |
| 27 |
(nor user C) know in advance exactly what the other is. They might not even |
| 28 |
know much about the data schema being used, so that metadata is in the xml. |
| 29 |
This is so completely not the case with hal on a local machine, that it defies |
| 30 |
description why the dev thought it might be useful. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives