Alan McKinnon wrote: > Another layer can be good, if properly abstracted. A good example is KDE's > popups when you plug in a hotswap storage device. You get a context-sensitive > popup asking you what you want to do and the choices are sane. You say what > you want to do and don't worry about the implementation. This is good.
This is not something that we would agree on; I don't use any automounter. I prefer to manually mount. So in this particular case another layer would be bad (for me). I guess I'm a bit of a minimalist. > XML OTOH was designed for a very specific purpose, and what hal does is not > it. Too many UIs for things like this take the exact same info in the file, > shuffle it around a bit, display some bits in green and other bits in red, > and > then try and proclaim that this is a VeryGoodThing(tm). Which purpose? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_XML_markup_languages > But I've been around a long time and by now have a finely honed bullshit > detector. It rings alarm bells when I look at the implementation of hal (but > not the idea of hal). Well, I think we are in disagreement here as well... HAL is deprecated/removed (starting) from a future Xorg release (server-1.8?) and in it's place is Udev (via libudev) which is all well and good (imo). Why add another layer when it's not needed? What would HAL accomplish when all it does is listen to what udev "says"? What Devicekit/Udisks will be used for, I don't know/care... Best regards Peter K
