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"
