[patch] wireless patch, take 2

[Kay Sievers]

On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 09:44:25PM +0200, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-05-27 at 15:41 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-05-27 at 15:36 -0400, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> > 
> > > As you pointed out before, just setting a property is a little icky; you
> > > can set a value and not have it actually mean anything.
> > 
> > Well, I pointed that out before in response to having HAL use callouts
> > to set the properties (e.g., we don't actually change much from today).
> > 
> > Now I am suggesting that HAL actually have side effects to certain
> > properties and go out and set them on _its own_.
> > 
> > E.g., I do a hal_device_set_property() on a device's ESSID and then HAL
> > goes out and tries to change the ESSID.  The property is changed iff HAL
> > changes the property physically.
> >
> > So there is no disconnect between HAL and reality.
> > 
> 
> This is quite clever actually. And we'd still support the distro
> specific things when things actually change, because then the callout is
> fired, right?
> 
> What about volume.label, should we physically write to the partition
> when the user sets this properties?

Oh, I thought about the same thing today. It sounded crazy on the
afternoon, but now that I'm getting closer to the new :) picture of HAL,
it sounds nice to do it. We may wrap the mkfs.* scripts in a callout?

Btw: What is the preferred way to talk to a device? Is a callout preferred
or should we link a library/include code if there is something available?
As a example the volume_id-label-sniffing-code can be compiled in or easily
converted to a small binary.
What do you think?

thanks,
Kay

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