On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Pete Batard <p...@akeo.ie> wrote: > PS: I think the reason people are starting libusb/libusbx forks is > because they are put off by the (relative) complexity of the Windows > backend code. And that is pretty much a direct result of trying to > implement an API that was designed from the topdown, which, regardless > of how much the people who devised it tried to end up with something > that seemed simple and abstracted enough, inevitably had to end up on a > collision course with the weird restrictions and idiosyncrasies of > Windows...
I see it a bit differently even though the complexity of the Windows codes may play a part, I can see other major motivations. Ref: libusby: https://github.com/avakar/libusby libusbus: https://bitbucket.org/liamstask/libusbus 1) License: they choose to use more pemissive license than LGPL. But I do not think this is their main motivation. 2) The complexity of the event handling, I tend to believe this is the main motivation. To me 2) is really the one major problems for libusb-1.0 API. Just read the libusbx documentation and you will realize that it is not that designed for Windows http://libusbx.sourceforge.net/api-1.0/group__poll.html http://libusbx.sourceforge.net/api-1.0/mtasync.html The author of libusbus is apparently a libusbx user who has met some problems. -- Xiaofan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Free Next-Gen Firewall Hardware Offer Buy your Sophos next-gen firewall before the end March 2013 and get the hardware for free! Learn more. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sophos-d2d-feb _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
