hal draft spec

[George]

On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 05:13:35PM +0000, Dave Malcolm wrote:
> A thought on the proposal:
> 
> Flat vs hierarchical
> --------------------
> Currently there is a single list of all devices attached to the system. 
> Perhaps devices should form a hierarchy: 
> 	- a connectivity hierarchy, with a "root" device representing the
> motherboard, with CPU and memory attached, and buses coming off it etc
> 	- a category hierarchy: with "All devices" at the root, with
> subcategories such as "Storage Devices", "Joysticks" etc
> 
> Rather than querying all devices and have device added/removed
> messages,  you query for the root device, query the children of a
> device, and get child added/removed messages for a particular node in
> the hierarchy.
> 
> The category hierarchy could be generated from the physical hierarchy
> inside libhal.
> 
> Or is this just an unnecessary complication?

Are there going to be so many added/removed messages that it would be a
problem to just get them all and filter them?  How many events can
realistically happen in a given timeframe.

On the other hand if we wish to do some sort of 'network' transparency
in the future for this.  Say you'd list all the devices available to you
on the network.  So in the future you'd have the teapot and the toaster
devices and such, and your home network goes down and up because of a
power failure or something you'd get all these toasters being removed and
added.

In this case however, the net traffic will be far greater bottleneck.

George

PS1: Am I completely on crack? or did I actually get what you meant?

PS2: A yes:yes answer to the above two questions is quite possible.

-- 
George <jirka at 5z.com>
   Miau miau, zikala kocicka dyz hapala do studne.
                       -- Hyta a Batul