On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 3:08 PM, stef <stef.dev at free.fr> wrote: > Le vendredi 29 mai 2009 22:23:23 m. allan noah, vous avez ?crit : >> well, lets re-open the discussion of the return codes. Julien had some >> reservations about this technique. I dont have a problem with it, as >> long as we formalize it in the standard exactly which status codes >> require retry. I also would like to add a generic 'SANE_STATUS_RETRY' >> for those cases where the backend has to block during sane_start >> because it must ingest the entire image before the size is known. I'd >> rather not block... >> >> allan > > ? ? ? ?I think a SANE_STATUS_UNCALIBRATED would also be useful. It would let a > frontend that the scan can start, but will be uncalibrated. This would fit in > the case of sheetfed scanners which haven't been calibrated yet using an > special sheet.
what will the front-end do with that info? just plow ahead and ignore it? Thats not really a status, but more of a param of the image data. I think if you want that info, it makes more sense to turn the last frame member of sane_params into a series of flags. allan -- "The truth is an offense, but not a sin"
