On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Richard Hughes <hughsi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> As per his post to libusb-win32 mailing list, he will >> probably drop libusb-1.0A support and use his own >> USB implementation in the future > > Shouldn't this trigger some kind of alarm in the libusbx project? I > mean, if users like Graeme are dropping libusb for something > hand-rolled because it's not suitable, what's the point in libusbx?
If you read Pete's reply, Graeme's case is a bit special. Moreover in general, I think the developers can choose to move to a new library or his own implementation if one of the dependency libraries (eg: libusbx) is not suitable for his use case. If the developer comes to libusbx list and states the deficiency of libusbx, then of course we will try to address his issue when possible. We could even refer him to a different library if libusbx is not suitable for the use case. So I do not see this as anything alarming. -- Xiaofan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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_mar _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
