Re: Shelving "The System Information API"

For instance,

Input / Output methods, memory, ...

best

El 10/11/11 11:40, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com> escribi�:

>On Nov 10, 2011, at 11:22 , JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA wrote:
>> I still believe that having a generic mechanism for getting access to
>> device properties is useful and better than specific APIs, one for each
>> aspect.
>
>But isn't that for the most part covered by the Sensors API? What parts
>of SysInfo are not covered by either specific APIs or the generic one �
>that's what I'm asking.
>
>> In essence the problem here is the same as in the other APIs you want to
>> discontinue: it has to be made clear that the API you are discontinuing
>> can also be a viable and useful approach. The only thing is that DAP has
>> decided to follow a different path. But does not mean that other options
>> are not valid.
>
>I understand that, and will draft a text that I hope will satisfy your
>concerns. But the case of SysInfo is different: its functionality seems
>to have been taken over by other documents completely, with one of those
>having a rather comparable design.
>
>--
>Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
>


Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol�tica de env�o y recepci�n de correo electr�nico en el enlace situado m�s abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at.
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx

Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 11:17:31 UTC