On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 3:40 PM, stef<stef.dev at free.fr> wrote: > Le samedi 13 juin 2009 14:55:54 m. allan noah, vous avez ?crit : >> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 8:42 AM, stef<stef.dev at free.fr> wrote: >> > Le vendredi 12 juin 2009 19:52:57 m. allan noah, vous avez ?crit : >> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Richard >> >> >> >> Ryniker<ryniker at ryniker.ods.org> wrote: >> >> >> a frontend that asks for new, unsupported features, will simply >> >> >> get an appropriate error code. >> >> > >> >> > Allen Noah, earlier in this thread (Thu Jun 11 19:08:28 UTC 2009) >> >> > alluded >> >> > >> >> > to the problem with this approach when he wrote: >> >> >>bah- then no front-end will use it, since it is not guaranteed to be >> >> >>there. >> >> >> >> <snip> >> >> >> >> > I believe SANE, like many other applications, will find it better to >> >> > change its API in infrequent, discrete steps than to follow a >> >> > "continuous change is permitted" strategy. >> >> >> >> Well, you can't get much more infrequent API changes than SANE :) >> >> >> >> Seriously, we have to bump the major number on the soversion to do any >> >> changes. The only real question is what do we do with all the >> >> unmaintained backends? >> >> >> >> 1: drag them along via modification >> >> 2: leave them behind and make the frontends link against sane1 and sane2 >> >> 3: leave them behind and use a sane-compat meta-backend to make them >> >> appear to have the sane2 api >> >> 4: make our API modifications small enough that old backends will be >> >> forward compatible >> >> >> >> Note that all 4 of these options are easier for the programmer if the >> >> API changes are kept small. Are there any other choices? >> >> >> >> allan >> > >> > ? ? ? ?Hello, >> > >> > ? ? ? ?maybe deciding first on what features we want to bring in would >> > help us to choose. Once we know what to add, it should be easier to plan >> > how to do it. >> >> We already tried that. It is called the sane 2 draft spec, and its >> been sitting on the server for years. IMHO, we should not start >> another round of open-ended dreaming. We must keep in mind what is >> possible, given our limited resources. That is why I started from the >> 'how' instead of 'what' perspective. >> >> allan > > ? ? ? ?OK, > > ? ? ? ?but after a quick read, it seems to me that the draft doesn't address > user > notification during warming up, nor the case of sheet fed scanners > calibration. >
I think you missed my point. I did not say that the sane 2 draft was good (in fact I disagree with quite a bit of it). Rather, I was saying that standard started from the what-if perspective, rather than 'how' and it was never built. allan -- "The truth is an offense, but not a sin"
