H. William Welliver III wrote: >On Jun 9, 2012, at 12:58 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
>> I briefly checked, and as far as I can see, libusb-1.0 is the *only* >> usb library/interface being offered which is cross-OS. >> This does not mean that in the future, something else might arise >> which offers the same, but I'd consider it extremely unlikely. >> So, we could name it libUSB or similar, but for brevity, USB sounded >> better. >I wasn't necessarily suggesting I had a better idea, or even really disagree >with using USB, and agree that libUSB is kind of an ugly name, but calling it >USB suggests that it may be canonical, when there are a number of (pretty >important) holes in its functionality that someone else might need to fill >with an overlapping bit of code: HID devices, as an obvious example, and >something I've been dabbling with in my spare time. Forgive my ignorance here (perhaps), but as far as I can determine (without actually having written a driver that accesses a HID over USB), the libusb-1.0 interface offered is so generic that it can be used for any USB device, including HIDs. >What would be nice if there were a way to have providers that can be >registered and then used (much like the Sql.Provider namespace). If the USB >module consisted solely of classes and didn't have any module.pmod magic, one >could use join-nodes to blend them together, but then they'd need to be in >different module roots. I'd say there is nothing stopping you from adding USB.HID() or other convenience methods/classes that help you in dealing with HIDs across USB. No need for fancy registering. -- Stephen. "I have a *cunning* plan!"
