sane config files [was [sane-devel] Infrared channel]]

m. allan noah anoah@pfeiffer.edu
Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:55:04 -0500 (EST)


On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Julien BLACHE wrote:

> "m. allan noah" <anoah@pfeiffer.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Don't you think that at least item 1 and 2 can be detected by the
>>> backend ?
>>
>> yes for #1, no for #2 and #3. since some times the same 'model' is
>> actually 2 different pieces of hardware. but, i am not familiar with
>> every single backend, so i dont know how much this happens.
>
> In this case, the product ID will differ between the 2 hardwares (if
> they're totally different, at least), or we can hope so. (talking of
> USB here, as for everything else there's really no means to guess)
>

no, you hope for too much. there are cases where manuf. makes changes to 
equipment capabilities (running changes) but does not update the PID. 
perhaps this case cannot be helped, and perhaps Oliver is right, that the 
backend will have to make options to disable these features.

>>   (the serial number might not be accessible by the backend,
>>> sure).
>>
>> if the serial number cant be gotten by the backend, then who can? the
>> backend should know how if it is possible at all.
>
> The user, with a pair of eyes :)
>

then the serial number is useless to the discussion. the only reason to 
get it, is situations where there are multiple of the same scanner being 
used on a machine, and each needs a slightly different calibration. if 
per-scanner configs (gamma tables, etc) were stored by serial number this 
would work, even when the scanner switches ports or from scsi to usb.

in order for this to work, the backend needs to be able to uniquely ID the 
unit.

>>> If we cannot get rid of the config files (there's some experience like
>>> the same product ID applying to slightly different hardware), we can
>>> at least have a look at them as they are now, see if there are options
>>> that can be removed, and try to come up with a unified format.
>>
>> agreed, though i believe that most users think in terms of the label
>> on the scanner not backends, so any config that is required might end
>> up being more scanner specific.
>
> Yes. It's always confusing when an Epson scanner ends up being used
> with the snapscan backend ;)
>
> How about we ask the vendors to embbed the config file in the scanner ? :P
>
> (and here, we can only realize that the whole scanning world is such a
> mess, that we might never find a good solution to handle everything...)

agreed.

allan

>
> JB.
>
>

-- 
"so don't tell us it can't be done, putting down what you don't know.
money isn't our god, integrity will free our souls" - Max Cavalera