Re: libusb future

Tim Roberts wrote:
> 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?

I hope for it to be cooperative, but I'm not sure how much I can expect
other people to contribute.

> 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?

Indeed, feedback is appreciated. I am not yet happy with the naming
aspects of the API which I have already meddled with a few times since
starting the project. Suggestions appreciated.

I can probably guess, but which parts did you find unintuitive?

Do you think I should refer to control transfers as "messages" but bulk
ones as something else? (i guess yes). libusb_submit_bulk_transfer()?
libusb_submit_bulk_urb()?

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

Yes, it's planned, just haven't gone as far to implement it yet. There
is certainly work to be done before this can be released as v1.0.

> 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.

Agreed, I'm sure we can learn from each other.

Thanks,
Daniel

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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