[sane-devel] [RFC] Improving sane-find-scanner
m. allan noah
anoah at pfeiffer.edu
Sun Aug 27 20:10:55 UTC 2006
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> I've got a patch (part of which I erroneously committed to CVS some
> time ago...) that makes sane-find-scanner tell the user which backends
> can be used with the USB scanners that it just detected.
> It's based on a table generated by sane-desc from the description
> files (really, 2 tables, one for backends included in sane-backends,
> and the other for external backends when we have description files for
> them). The tables eat up some space, so the sane-find-scanner binary
> gets bigger with this patch.
my only concern there would be if the user sees the name of an external
backend, and assumes it is already installed. also- what about the case
where a backend is installed, but disabled in dll.conf?
> I'm looking for feedback on that idea; I know it's basically a good
> idea and it needed to be done, but the implementation is pretty
> static, which may not please everyone. Probably having a directory
> where external backends can drop a file would be better, so parsing
> the desc files from sane-find-scanner looks like a better idea (would
> just need to generate the tables at runtime from the desc files, which
> would only duplicate some code from sane-desc).
are the desc files currently installed anywhere? does it make more sense
to roll them up into structs in a .so that we could load? that reduces the
runtime processing, while allowing external backends to provide additional,
though honestly, i am not all that sure of the benefit. i mean, if you run
sane-find-scanner and see it, but scanimage -L does not, then the backend
support is missing anyway?
> Thoughts ?
"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
More information about the sane-devel