[patch] wireless patch, take 2

[Kay Sievers]

On Thu, 2004-05-27 at 15:45 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> 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?

Yeah, this is _the_ convincing argument.
I just needed a few more hours (not only 20 minutes with Joe :)) to get
used to the idea that HAL is no longer a small hardware database, but a
_real_ abstraction to handle basic hardware manipulation.

Damn, the borders what HAL should handle are very soft then, and I need
to say good-by to the clear delimited picture, but it feels inescapable
and it is really really worth to try it!

Much thanks for the illustration,
Kay



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