On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 01:31:10PM +0200, Sander van Grieken wrote: > On Thursday 15 October 2009 12:39:09 Philip Hands wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 10:21:30AM +0200, Sander van Grieken wrote: > > > On Wednesday 14 October 2009 17:00:28 Philip Hands wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:59:24AM +0200, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > ... I think we should > > > > > still create a GPS level protocol that fits the dbus model better > > > > > than gypsy. > > > > > > > > Feel free to tell me that I'm totally clueless, as I may well be, but > > > > what is wrong with using gpsd for the GPS bit of that? > > > > > > > > gpsd apparently provides some sort of dbus -- I can imagine that there > > > > are things not exposed via dbus that could be, but isn't that a reason > > > > to request the extra stuff be added to gpsd's dbus rather than > > > > indulging in another round of wheel reinvention? > > > > > > It's not wheel reinvention, but abstracting all positioning services into > > > one position provider. GPS is one of the positioning services, but not > > > the only one. > > > > Ah, I should have quoted Michael's comment more tightly (As I have now) > > > > I was mostly referring to the idea of doing a GPS level protocol, which > > would presumably sit on top of the actual gpsd layer, since gpsd is > > Ok but then can you tell me what is the benefit of doing a GPS level protocol > on top of a > (IMO) GPS level protocol?
Erm, no -- since I was arguing _against_ adding another low-level fso-specific layer on top of what I'll be running anyway (i.e. gpsd) Cheers, Phil. _______________________________________________ smartphones-standards mailing list smartphones-standards@linuxtogo.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/smartphones-standards
