[patch] wireless patch, take 2

[Robert Love]

On Thu, 2004-05-27 at 15:41 -0400, Robert Love wrote:

> Now I am suggesting that HAL actually have side effects to certain
> properties and go out and set them on _its own_.

And the reason I am for this now is what I (tried to) spelled out in my
previous email: HAL _already_ does a lot of work to abstract access to
the device, gathers properties via ioctl() and whatever else, etc.

So, to add set support, we only turn the ioctl() around and use it to
set the property.  Small change.

This would result in HAL being fully usable by its users, whereas
without set support HAL could be an abstraction to fetch data but to
manipulate the data the users would have to revert to the current status
quo.

And what sort of hardware abstraction layer is that?

	Robert Love



_______________________________________________
hal mailing list
hal at freedesktop.org
http://freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/hal