Bill Welliver wrote:
If libusb is as generic as srb says (I haven't looked at it myself), then I think it'd be ok to grab the name "USB" for it. It doesn't seem to get too messy if people start to extend it with more advanced functionality, and it's fairly unlikely that a contender will actually materialize in the foreseeable future. Unless perhaps you have concrete plans to develop some more abstract usb interface?
I wasn't necessarily thinking of something more abstract, though it might be useful to consider other options in the design, which would theoretically make things more complete:
libhid, which does for hid devices what libusb does for non-hid devices openusb, which adds support for solaris as well as hotplugging, which are two pretty nice features.
Reading up on libhid I see: "libusb -- the cross-platform library used by libhid to access USB devices"
Doesn't this simply mean that libhid uses libusb as its lower layer? I.e. libusb is "complete" as such, and libhid is just the next level. Which would imply that, in Pike, it probably would be a good idea to create a HID.Devices() and friends module with classes, instead of USB.HID.