[sane-devel] Sane Release 1.1.0 ?

[m. allan noah]

sorry julien, should have included list....

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:06 PM, m. allan noah <kitno455 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Julien BLACHE <jb at jblache.org> wrote:
>> "m. allan noah" <kitno455 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> but- as you have said several times in this thread, what about
>>> frontends that link to the backend, bypassing dll? They might get a
>>> frame-type they have never heard of, all while the backend says it
>>> follows major version 1, which the standard says will never happen.
>>
>> I think we discussed that and the consensus was that if the frontend
>> is well written it shouldn't be an issue.
>>
>> Is there actually a backend that feeds a new frame type to the
>> frontend without the frontend asking for it?
>>
>
> If you want to split hairs, then yes, you might assume that. however,
> this leaves it up to the end user to know that his front-end cant
> handle jpeg, so dont set that option. That should get the Gnome guys
> panties in a wad :)
>
> In fact, adding a function is worse that i first though. A recent
> frontend could connect directly to an old backend, inspect the version
> number just like the standard says, and then call sane_status(). Bam!
> This never happens with our current design, because old backends are
> forward compatible.
>
> Any of these changes, function or enum, is an API/ABI change. The
> standard is clear: we must bump the version number. Oliver Rauch said
> as much and we should have listened...
>
> allan
> --
> "The truth is an offense, but not a sin"
>



-- 
"The truth is an offense, but not a sin"