Am Don, 2005-02-24 um 18.49 schrieb Julien BLACHE: > "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 ? (the serial number might not be accessible by the backend, > sure). 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. > > 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.
When there are really some settings that need to be selected by the user, why are these settings not implemented as a sane option, may be an advanded sane option. May be we need an additional flag to the existing ADVANCED flag, may be a CONFIGURE flag. This way the backend would define what the user can select and we already would have a configuration tool: the frontend. The backend could save the last selected setting in its own configuration file as a default option (although this also could be done by the frontend). Oliver
