On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 02:06, David Brownell wrote: > This is basically an early-vs-late binding policy choice. MSFT is > doing early binding, Linux is doing late. Which is fine with me; > the rule of thumb I'm used to is that late binding is preferable > until there's a real problem with not having an "early" option. > If you delay binding late enough, you may never need to assign the > resources! :)
Catching up with an old thread to an extent but part of the row here appears to be missing the fact that early and late binding are both right depending on the driver itself. It depends whether failure is meaningful on a per operation level "record 5 seconds of video" "no" or only can be handled at certain key points in a meaningful way (eg audio) ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net emial is sponsored by: Influence the future of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4699841;7576298;k?http://www.sun.com/javavote _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
