On Sunday 17 January 2010 22:14:06 Neil Walker wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > how do we > > prevent that DeviceKit will become the same desaster as hald? > > The only way to be sure of that is to write your own replacement for HAL. > ;)
That might not be a bad idea.... I never agreed with the implementation of hal. An abstract layer sounds good, but why must it abstract ALL hardware? Most software already knows what type of devices it is going to use, so that software should either do it's own abstraction, or a utility library should do it, but be limited to what devices it deals with. Most devices fall into one of two groups: storage and I/O. Auto-mounters do not care about your keyboard, whereas X needs to know about your monitor, card, keyboard, mouse. Why does hal try and abstract both? Seems silly to me. One could also argue that the developer's state of mind is reflected in the chosen method of configuration - xml files. This just defies all understanding. Apart from the fact that real-world xml is almost unreadable, the conditions that make xml useful are simply not present in hal... xml works well when you have system A talking to system B and neither A nor B (nor user C) know in advance exactly what the other is. They might not even know much about the data schema being used, so that metadata is in the xml. This is so completely not the case with hal on a local machine, that it defies description why the dev thought it might be useful. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
