Eric Lundby wrote: >> How are you going to avoid specifying a COM port across platforms? > Not sure how to take this. Sounds a bit cynical.
That was not my intent at all -- I must have worded my question poorly. Allow me to try again. > I'm currently using > libusb/WinUSB on Windows to communicate with my device w/o specifying > a COM port. Considering COM ports are in general a Windows only topic, > I guess this is already accomplished. Your second sentence is not true, and that was my original point. If you have a device that gets exposed as a virtual COM port, it gets assigned a COM port number on all of the operating systems. Windows calls it COM4 (or whatever). Linux has a different naming convention, but the number is still there. You were objecting to dealing with the COM port number on Windows, but the same problem exists everywhere. > However, I do appear to be able to accomplish what > I want using bulk transfers via Libusbx. Are there major issues with > this that I'm not aware of? I'm with Alan. If it works for you, bulk traffic is the most common kind. -- Tim Roberts, t...@probo.com Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
