Re: libusb future

Daniel Drake wrote:
> As Johannes Erdfelt wrote in a mail earlier today, I'm now in control of
> the libusb project.
> ...
> 3. I will rename my new USB library project (fpusb) to "libusb-1.0". In
> other words, this can be viewed as a complete rewrite of libusb
> (although with various borrowed code/ideas). The goals are basically to
> provide asynchronous I/O capabilities in a lightweight library, while
> offering poll fd's for decent mainloop integration.

How open do you expect to be?  That is, do you expect to be a benevolent
dictator, having sole control over all aspects of the code base?  Or do
you expect it to be a cooperative development effort?

For example, in my opinion, many of your API names are not necessarily
intuitive; I couldn't guess what they do without consulting a
reference.  Part of that comes from abbreviating.  And what led you to
use "msg" to describe all of the USB transfers?  In the USB spec,
control pipes are the only ones that carry "messages".  Do you expect to
open this up for discussion?

This does not seem to support isochronous pipes yet.  Do you have a plan
for that?

And do we all expect to continue having both libusb and openusb
discussions on this one mailing list?  Personally, I think the
cross-pollenization is probably quite valuable.

--
Tim Roberts, timr@...
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Libusb-devel mailing list
Libusb-devel@...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusb-devel