Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote: > On Wednesday 13 May 2009 00:17:26 Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: >> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 07:52:48AM +1000, Carsten Haitzler wrote: >>> On Tue, 12 May 2009 16:40:48 +0200 Pander <pan...@users.sourceforge.net> > said: >>>> Steve 'dillo Okay (Roadknight Mobility Labs) wrote: >>>>> On May 11, 2009, at 13:26 , community-requ...@lists.openmoko.org > wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:34 PM, David Reyes Samblas Martinez >>>>>> <da...@tuxbrain.com >>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Ok another api framework for smartphones,this time provided by big >>>>>> guys, but which hardware?, I haven't see any reference on that in >>>>>> the web site. any clue any one? >>>>> "OpenNoko" anyone ? :) >>>> LOL >>>> >>>> Why don't they adapt what is already out there... Otherwise it would be >>>> OpenNono >>> the simple version it seems is that they simply don't like fso's api. >>> marcel holtmann said its too low-level and they don't see it as something >>> they want. ask them for more details - but tat seems to be the gist of >>> it. >> I'm a layman but that seems bonkers if that's their "official" argument... >> they could always add a layer above it :( > > Besides that a) it really isn't too low level -- it's rather an appropriate > compromise between the 3GPP specs and what applications want to know -- and > b) > there's an even higher level already available in FSO called ophone.
Perhaps they are aiming at this high level API: void do_it(void); > > :M: > > > _______________________________________________ > Openmoko community mailing list > community@lists.openmoko.org > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community