Handling of driver protocol extensions in cvs

[Aivils Stoss]

On Otrdiena, 31. Janvāris 2006 01:35, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Monday 30 January 2006 17:29, Philip Langdale wrote:
> > Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > There is no preferred mechanism atm.  Whatever makes your life easiest,
> > > I suppose, though in the long term I would like as few driver-specific
> > > extensions as possible.
> >
> > Agreed, a proliferation of driver extensions isn't in anyone's interest.
> >
> > Aivils Stoss posted a description of a generic extension a few days ago,
> > which might serve as a mechanism to standardise the driver extensions -
> > and even a simple key-value get-set extension where each driver could
> > publish keys would probably go a long way.
>
> While the latter idea sounds fine, Aivils' proposal to me sounded like
> "protocols are hard and I don't want to define my API so let's just not
> worry about it", which is completely not the way to go.

Exactly!
Why *nix ioctl fuctions works without API around 30 years. But under
X i should write MyCoolDriverSetGibberingOn() - 100 lines of code at
least, sane is 200 lines. These 200 lines do the job:
Gibbering = 1
Nice, nice, very nice!

Aivils Stoss