On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 14:50 -0400, Alon Levy wrote: > ----- "Gerd Hoffmann" <kra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > I don't think this is a good idea. This is just a chardev > > passthrough, > > right? If so, then we should just make it that. Name it 'chardev' or > > > > 'datapipe' or something simliar. Have a additional 'init' message to > > > > specify the kind of chardev. Then we can just reuse it when we'll > > have > > more simliar users in the future. > > > > Do you think this is a better direction then adding the actual messages? (see > below) I don't think its better. > > Or we could make this a real interface definition where each smartcard > > > > message gets its own message type. > > > > Yes, I was lazy - actually let me back up a little. For the smartcard reader > device to be viable on it's own, it has to talk some protocol that is defined > outside of spice. That protocol is also a header "type/size" protocol, so it > is > easy to write the spice.proto channel definition for it - that's were I was > lazy > and haven't done it. I guess it's time to be less lazy. Sounds good to me. Then you'd get automatic (de)marshalling support for it in the client too. > > Oh, and shouldn't the channel-specific messages better start with > > '101' > > like all other channels do? > > Yeah. Anyone know why they start at that particular number? Its because all channels derive from BaseChannel, adding some unused numbers so that it can be extended in the future. _______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spice-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
