First, I would like to thank you for support and being interested.
Second, Sorry that I am not going to work in the coming 3 days because of
somethings I have to do.
See you later :D
bye
On 8/2/07, Dan Streetman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Great! See responses below, but I will also mention that you do _not_
> have to re-use the Linux platform implementation. It may actually be
> easier for you to create a new platform implementation. The Linux
> implementation has a lot of baggage that is needed to work with the
> constraints of the Linux USB interface (usbfs). I would start with
> copying the "LinuxUsbServices" class into a new class "LibUsbServices"
> (or something like that) in your own package name (instead of
> "com.ibm.jusb.os.linux"). Strip out all the code, and start building
> the platform implementation around that class.
>
> If you really want to re-use the Linux implementation, I would at
> least highly recommend not re-using the JNI code, as I seriously doubt
> there will be much in common between the JNI from the Linux
> implementation and the JNI from the libusb implementation.
>
> Finally I will mention that if you are only doing this so javax.usb
> will work on Windows, I think an easier approach may be to simply use
> the libusb-windows Kernel-mode driver instead of the whole libusb
> package. I looked into that a while ago, and it seemed very possible
> to write a javax.usb Windows implemenation using just the libusb
> Kernel module (that is really the only missing piece of javax.usb on
> Windows). In fact I did a basic javax.usb on windows implemenation a
> long time ago, which is still in CVS if you want to look at it. It
> really only needs a cleanup (and better build system - I hate
> developing on Winbloze) and a kernel module. If you're not just
> trying to get javax.usb on Windows, ignore all that. ;-)
>
> But, do whatever you think is best and easiest. I'm excited to see it
> happen! Let me know if I can help with anything.
>
> thanks.
>
> On 8/2/07, Islam Beltagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am working in the Libusb implementation for Windows.
> > I found that the implementation requires these changes:
> > 1-In Libusb:
> > Build the correct hierarchy of hubs and devices
>
> This is the main reason I didn't pursue a libusb implementation for
> javax.usb.
>
> > Return number of ports of hubs and speed of devices
>
> This information really should be provided by libusb but isn't
> critical. The number of ports is certainly not very important to an
> application (although the javax.usb libusb implementation won't pass
> TCK without it). The speed of devices is even less important. I
> would not worry about trying to add these unless it's easy. In fact I
> think that both of these pieces of info is available by querying the
> hub? I would have to check to be sure. If that is the case, the
> libusb implementation can (in java) simply query each hub during
> enumeration or hub hotplug to get this info instead of needing a
> special libusb interface to the info.
>
> > Support asynchronous control submission
>
> It doesn't support async IO on the control pipe? But it does on other
> pipes? Very weird. If you can't get this into libusb (seems a design
> bug in libusb if not) then you can implement this by using a proxy
> Thread in the javax.usb libusb implementation. But native async
> support is best of course. I can help with this part, it should
> actually be rather easy to use a proxy thread to manage control
> submissions.
>
> > Support short packets
>
> This is very infrequently used by apps. Same as before, not critical
> to getting javax.usb to work but needed to pass TCK.
>
> > Support the Topology listener
>
> Specifically you only need to be able to update the topology map when
> devices are connected or disconnected. you don't have to use the same
> topology listener that the Linux implementation uses. Does libusb not
> support hotplugging? That would really be crazy...
>
> > 2-In the Java implementation:
> > Necessary changes after changing Libusb
> > Get use of already implemented asynchronous IO
>
> What is this?
>
> > Get use of already implemented Isochronous pipe.
>
> What is this?
>
> > I hope I can do these changes soon. If you have any comments or help or
> advices, they are really appreciated.
> > I hope I can pass the TCK.
> >
> > Thank you for your help
> >
> > bye
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
> > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > javax-usb-devel mailing list
> > javax-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/javax-usb-devel
> >
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
javax-usb-devel mailing list
javax-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/javax-usb-devel
