On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Julien BLACHE wrote: > "m. allan noah" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> let me ask this: how many of the config files that must be kept are >> kept because they have scanner-specific information in them, as >> opposed to backend-specific information? >> >> ie: how many times does a conf file say: >> >> 'for any scanners that use this backend, enable feature x" >> >> v/s >> >> 'for this particular model of scanner, enable feature x' >> >> v/s >> >> 'for this particular serial number, enable feature x' >> >> the reason i ask is that it would seem, based on the name, that only >> the first example really belongs in 'backend.conf', where the others >> belong in a per-model or per-SN file? > > 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. (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. There's still the possibility that a vendor will slightly > modify the hardware and not anything else, making it impossible to > guess which version of the hardware we're talking to. right, which is why #2 above cant automatically be in the backend. > > 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. 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
