Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:09:35 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> To: Ed Schouten <ed@fxq.nl> Cc: FreeBSD Arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Proposal for redesigning the TTY layer Message-ID: <A86365DD-5D15-42F2-A810-493B9F9E7AA3@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20080213150500.GH1340@hoeg.nl> References: <20080213150500.GH1340@hoeg.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 13, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Ed Schouten wrote: > The last couple of days I've been working on a document which > describes > the changes I'm going to perform. I have just finished this > document, so > I'm sending it to this list, so you can give your opinion on this > matter. You mention the console. It would be best not to tie it up with the TTY layer, because we typically need the console way before we can have a TTY layer. A better approach would be to treat the console as a logging facility that can log to various destinations. The message buffer is one, a system console can be another. That system console should use the TTY layer so that it can accept input. The reason not to tie them and instead think of printf() as a logging request is that it makes matters simpler in a multi-console setup. Also, it may be worthwhile to keep Unicode in mind when you are reworking the clists. If the TTY layer operates on wchar_t instead of char, then all it needs is a device driver that consumes the wchar_t to have native Unicode support. Non-Unicode drivers can use UTF-8 interfaces. Thoughts? -- Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt@mac.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A86365DD-5D15-42F2-A810-493B9F9E7AA3>