RE: [UDI-protocols] UDI drivers and protocol modules in applicati on libraries

[Barned, R. <rob...@lm...>]

Kevin,

I was thinking that many higher level protocol modules as well
as device drivers (the device might be plugged into a bus
for which there is a kernel driver) there is no need to 
have them in the kernel it would probably be better not to
have them there.  These modules and drivers would communicate
to modules or drivers in the kernel using some metalanguage 
such (e.g. the transport metalanguage).  

I was thinking that it would be advantageous if these modules
and drivers could be truly portable.


Bob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Quick, Kevin [mailto:Kev...@Su...]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:16 PM
> To: Barned, Robert; Project UDI Protocol Metalanguages Discussions
> Subject: RE: [UDI-protocols] UDI drivers and protocol modules in
> application libraries
> 
> 
> Bob,
> 
> I'm not sure what antecedent you intended in your reference to
> "they" below, but here's an answer and tell me if it's answering
> your question:
> 
> UDI drivers are written for location independence.  This means that
> the only thing that they are aware of is that they are running in a
> UDI environment.  They have no awareness of running in a kernel
> environment, user environment, or otherwise.
> 
> There can be user-space UDI environments as well as kernel-space
> UDI environments (our prototype POSIX environments are a rough
> version of the former).  The principle challenge to a user-space UDI
> environment is support of the Physical I/O spec. (should it 
> choose to do
> so).
> 
> A user-space UDI environment would tend to be a little more than a
> "library" because it would have independent execution contexts and
> global elements (such as the Management Agent) that are not
> traditionally aspects of a library.
> It's a little hard to quantify because a UDI environment is 
> very exactly
> specified
> whereas a "library" is more of a common nomenclature than a precise
> specification.
> 
> Regards,
>   Kevin
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Barned, Robert [mailto:rob...@lm...]
> Sent:	Wed 02/10/02 10:53 AM
> To:	Project UDI Protocol Metalanguages Discussions
> Cc:	
> Subject:	[UDI-protocols] UDI drivers and protocol modules in
> application libraries
> All,
> 
> Does it makes sense to implement a UDI environment as part 
> of an application library so that they can communicate with 
> kernel drivers (UDI or non-UDI), but provide functionality that 
> might be better to not include in the kernel?
> 
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Projectudi-protocols mailing list
> Pro...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/projectudi-protocols
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------
> This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may
> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
> review, use or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you are not the 
> intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify sender and delete 
> all copies immediately.
>