Input device design (3)

[Joe Krahn]

James Cloos wrote:
>  >>>>> "Joe" == Joe Krahn <krahn at niehs.nih.gov> writes:
> 
> Joe> ... event packets can be packaged to to the same event data
> Joe> formats used by X clients. The code is all there, and will also
> Joe> be there when new event types are defined. ... It is one more
> Joe> IPC exchange at most. An external low-load I/O daemon handling
> Joe> SIGIO from many devices might even be a good thing.
> 
> So, which is better:  moving the input event code into a separate
> daemon or just moving it into a(n optionally shared) library the
> x server can link to?
> 
> (Just throwing out ideas.)
> 
> -JimC
> -- 
> James H. Cloos, Jr. <cloos at jhcloos.com>

I think we can agree not to send events through an extra level of IPC, 
except in the case of a remote or virtual devices.

I like the idea of an I/O library. Consider a library of I/O handlers 
that packages events using an X-centric view, but still rather generic. 
An X Input loadable module is then built by combining the code for X 
server integration with the I/O code from a static library. This 
minimizes the I/O libraries knowledge of X. The same code can then be 
used shared or static by non-X programs.

Does that sound like a good plan?

Joe