ETAs for libusbx operability and first release?

[Xiaofan Chen]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:08 AM, Pete Batard <pete at akeo.ie> wrote:
> On 2012.01.30 16:46, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, my problem here is that I've accumulated quite a few things that
>>> I'd like to push,
>>
>> Yeah. Lucky for you libusb hasn't diverged much in the many months
>> you've been waiting.
>
> Actually it did. The removal of HID was a major PITA, since hotplug was
> based on code that had HID. I also haven't updated the hotplug branch for
> months, so there might be surprises.

I would like to have HID back. HIDAPI is good. However, it will probably
not have hotplug feature anytime soon. And libusb-1.0 with Windows
HID backend should still be good for quite some users. And when it
gains hotplug feature, then it has at least one advantage against HIDAPI.

Nathan was against the idea of an native HID backend for Mac OS X
so probably it will not happen for Mac OS X.

But I understand that this should be post 1.0.9 release. So we can
discuss this after 1.0.9 release.

>>> and I don't know how you guys want to prioritize them.
>>
>> Neither do we until you present a list ;-) Let's do that after the
>> 1.0.9 release though.
>
> Agreed. We'll need to go back to stuff that was debated on the libusb list.
> I remember that topology and logging callback were discussed there (the
> first is currently in -pbatard). There's also cross platform event support
> for async that we should try to implement sooner rather than later. But the
> rest will need to be digged up.

I think your list is pretty good summary. Maybe we should track
the list when the Wiki is up.

>
>> so we can make the 1.0.10 release the "big mswindows changes"
>> release?
>
> Thanks to Travis' good work, the libusbK and libusb-win32 integration
> shouldn't require that much of a major change actually, so, at least in
> terms of code, it may not be that spectacular. Should be a lot simpler
> than Graeme's proposal.

The only thing is that it will add libusbK.dll dependency and hopefully
that is okay to everyone.

>>> For instance, if you want a hotplug proposal right after the 1.0.9
>>> release,
>>
>> I'd say hotplug is something for v2.
>
> OK. I wasn't planning to push it for 1.0.10 anyway.

I agree.

>>> I can most certainly provide one. But that will push the
>>> libusb-win32/libusbK integration back,
>>
>> I think it is best if you focus on this for .10 .
>
> That's also my current plan, but it doesn't hurt making sure someone doesn't
> see it differently.

I think it is a good plan.


-- 
Xiaofan