Uniform Driver Interface: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
[unchecked revision] | [unchecked revision] |
Content deleted Content added
m Toned down the "Sales Pitch" and made the article more honest and down to earth. |
More toning down of the hyperbole. |
||
Line 17:
===Advantages===
* Portability (both cross-OS and cross-platform), which was mentioned in the above section, is perhaps the primary concern for which UDI was developed in the first place. All we can hope for is that enough operating systems will embrace the model so we can actually take advantage of it.
* Performance is comparable or better than that of legacy drivers for a native implementation.
*
*
* Flexibility is another thing UDI has been designed mind with: not only in the way the specification was conceived (i.e., to be extensible), but also in the sense that it permits system programmers to apply techniques such as driver isolation, shadow drivers, etc. if they see fit to do so.
* The interface is fully asynchronous, in every respect; high scaling systems are becoming increasingly predominant and asynchronicity is slowly becoming an "expected" feature for modern kernels. UDI moves ahead of the herd to enable a compliant kernel to slowly adopt asynchronous interfaces without having to do major redesign later on.
===Disadvantages===
|