Pete Batard wrote: > > I don't believe there were suggestions in any direction so far, but > > I think using more of HIDAPI in libusbx would be a logical extension. > > Considering that libusbx is the lower level library here, theoretically, > the most logical thing would be for HIDAPI to rely on libusbx rather > than the opposite
The theory in this case is just that, theory. Since libusbx replicates what HIDAPI (and libusb-win32) does, and then adds onto that, libusbx is indeed higher level than HIDAPI. > unlike libusb, we don't see it as beneficial to force users to go > through 2 libraries when one should do. That is confusing. HIDAPI doesn't depend on libusb. HIDAPI can optionally use libusb, but that's only useful on old Linux systems where the OS-native HID API was insufficient. //Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Windows 8 Center - In partnership with Sourceforge Your idea - your app - 30 days. Get started! http://windows8center.sourceforge.net/ what-html-developers-need-to-know-about-coding-windows-8-metro-style-apps/ _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
