[sane-devel] [SANE2 proposal] Error handling

[Oliver Rauch]

When we want to make things simple and have it available soon
why don`t we add a SANE_STATUS_DEVICE_PERMISSION_DENIED
or something like that to the allowed sane status, and if necessary
others too?

I think this does not break anything in SANE-1

Oliver

On Saturday 29 November 2003 18:47, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Major A <andras@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> >> If we're to change the standard, we can change the network protocol
> >> too, and even more if we want a complete, secure rewrite of saned...
> >
> > It has nothing to do with the protocol itself whether or not saned is
> > secure. If it isn't, why not rewrite it right away?
>
> The idea was that during the saned rewrite (given it happens someday)
> we might want to modify the protocol for some reason, so that wouldn't
> be a big deal anyway.
>
> >> Maybe, but at least it's still a simple, basic data type, and given
> >> the way SANE status codes are defined, 16 bits are more than enough
> >> for now.
> >
> > This sounds like Bill Gates to me.
>
> OK point taken :-)
>
> >> That's another way, but it looks like a kludge to me as options aren=
't
> >> designed to report errors :)
> >
> > They are designed to do a lot of things, and clarifying (not
> > reporting) errors would just be one more.
>
> I still think it's not the proper solution, and that options should
> remain just that.
>
> > I don't understand why things have to be overcomplicated when there's
> > such a simple solution.
>
> I'm all for a simple solution :-) I'm not trying to push my ideas, but
> rather to start the discussion so we can find a simple solution that
> does the job :)
>
> JB.

--=20
http://www.xsane.org
http://www.mostang.com/sane
http://www.rauch-domain.de
mailto:Oliver.Rauch@Rauch-Domain.DE