Input device design (3)
krahn at niehs.nih.gov
Thu Sep 1 06:37:09 PDT 2005
James Cloos wrote:
> >>>>> "Joe" == Joe Krahn <krahn at niehs.nih.gov> writes:
> Joe> ... event packets can be packaged to to the same event data
> Joe> formats used by X clients. The code is all there, and will also
> Joe> be there when new event types are defined. ... It is one more
> Joe> IPC exchange at most. An external low-load I/O daemon handling
> Joe> SIGIO from many devices might even be a good thing.
> So, which is better: moving the input event code into a separate
> daemon or just moving it into a(n optionally shared) library the
> x server can link to?
> (Just throwing out ideas.)
> James H. Cloos, Jr. <cloos at jhcloos.com>
I think we can agree not to send events through an extra level of IPC,
except in the case of a remote or virtual devices.
I like the idea of an I/O library. Consider a library of I/O handlers
that packages events using an X-centric view, but still rather generic.
An X Input loadable module is then built by combining the code for X
server integration with the I/O code from a static library. This
minimizes the I/O libraries knowledge of X. The same code can then be
used shared or static by non-X programs.
Does that sound like a good plan?
More information about the xorg