Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 07:27:22 +0100 From: "Martin Husemann" <martin@rumolt.teuto.de> To: "Gary Jennejohn" <garyj@muc.de>, <freebsd-isdn@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: ITK Support Message-ID: <000601be27f3$f943d120$53cb08d4@hwart.teuto.de> In-Reply-To: <199812142244.XAA05201@peedub.muc.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I wrote: > >No, no real problems if (a) the interface to the card is > documented, (b) the > >interface is reasonable and (c) the card behaves like the docs promise. Gary answered: > the real problem is that a lot of active cards require a CAPI interface, > which we do not have (yet). This is an example of violating (b) above - IMHO. The idea goes back to the DOS days: a CAPI was required as user-land interface, and implementing it in a TSR costed precious memory. So they've put all of the CAPI stuff onto the card (where memory could be added as needed). Nowadays even a windows driver can waste a hundreds of kByte code without any bad effect on the system as a whole - so the interface to the card should be as simple as possible, not on user-land application level like CAPI. I like the (old) EICON.Diehl cards for having such a reasonable (and well documented) interface, yet it doesn't give all the debugging information I'd like to have, so I still don't know why it drops the called party number on a setup request... Martin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isdn" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000601be27f3$f943d120$53cb08d4>