Re: LDP and comedi

From: Bernd Porr <BerndPorr_at_f2s.com> · Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:57:16 +0100

Hi all,

I think that the API is excellent (thanks to the work by Dave) and 
shouldn't be changed except of pruning some stuff which is not used 
anyway. For example, the slowly varying input stuff. We had a discussion 
about that a year ago that it's not really a good solution (and it has 
never been used for quite a while). Otherwise the API is great and there 
are LOADS of programs which use it already. I think we would put off 
loads of people if we change it now.

I suggest that we really leave the API MAINLY as it is and just remove 
the stuff which is not used in any application program. Otherwise we 
just render loads of application software unusable.

/Bernd

www:    http://www.berndporr.me.uk/
         http://www.linux-usb-daq.co.uk/
Mobile: +44 (0)7840 340069
Work:   +44 (0)141 330 5237
         University of Glasgow
         Department of Electronics & Electrical Engineering
         Room 519, Rankine Building, Oakfield Avenue,
         Glasgow, G12 8LT

Herman Bruyninckx wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, superaorta_at_tiscali.co.uk wrote:
> 
>>>> distributions.  To my understanding, there are a bunch of DAQ drivers
>>>> in the mainline kernel that would benefit from a standardized
>>>> userspace interface.
>>>>
>>>> Let me know if you have any comments or would like to be involved.
>>
>>> I would like to be involved, at least as far as the definition of the 
>>> API
>>> standard for data acquisition is concerned: I think a discussion is 
>>> needed
>>> first about how 'the ideal' API should look like. The RTDM people (Jan
>>> Kiszka in particular) have done some very interesting work in this 
>>> domain;
>>
>> This is where I start to get worried about the move to LDP, where COMEDI
>> morphs from a small community of users into some large amorphous, 
>> abstract
>> layer that begins to move away from the hardware into programmers wet 
>> dream.
> 
> Why should that happen, _if_ the "people from the floor" are taken into the
> design loop...? Anyway there is not much that I would like to see 
> changed in
> the current Comedi API! Comedi has been hesitant to go into a "1.0 API
> freeze", and this LDP offer might be the perfect opportunity to finally
> make this decision.
> 
> BTW, what are, in the opinion of the Comedi users/developers, the real
> 'showstoppers' to move to "1.0"...?
> 
> Herman Bruyninckx
> -- 
>   K.U.Leuven, Mechanical Eng., Mechatronics & Robotics Research Group
>     <http://people.mech.kuleuven.be/~bruyninc> Tel: +32 16 322480
>   Coordinator of EURON (European Robotics Research Network)
>     <http://www.euron.org>
>   Open Realtime Control Services <http://www.orocos.org>
> 
> Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> comedi mailing list
> comedi_at_comedi.org
> https://mail.comedi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/comedi
> 