[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

On Wednesday 21 March 2007 02:51, David Zeuthen wrote: >[...] > > Also, handling more than one scanner could be complicated, depending > > on what you want to do, how you want to do it, and what is already > > done in the backend. > > Plan is to invoke an instance of the addon per connected device

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

David Zeuthen wrote: Hi, > I'm planning just basing this on the existing sanebuttonsd code; that > looks pretty generic.. or am I missing something? I'll let others comment on that one, I did not look at that code. > I suppose that would work well if, and only if, libsane can drive > multiple

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

> with HAL and I don't blame you for not being :-) Have you checked out some of the interesting comments made in the past? Will this patch provide a way for programs using HAL to call standard methods such as scan or will it be assumed that the app will continue to call sane directly? >> what is

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 17:52 +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: > I know, but I doubt it supports OS/2 or BeOS :) Probably never... but never say never I guess :-) > > I'll try writing the patch today but I just need a scanner where the > > libsane driver supports buttons. Any recommendations for a cheap

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 13:58 -0400, Martin Owens wrote: > > with HAL and I don't blame you for not being :-) > > Have you checked out some of the interesting comments made in the past? > > Will this patch provide a way for programs using HAL to call standard > methods such as scan or will it be as

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 13:51 -0400, m. allan noah wrote: > ok, i think i understand the distinction between 5 and 6, you cross > the system to gui gap using dbus signals between two processes? That's correct. > 1. does udev signal HAL on every change to any device in the system, > or only certain

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

On 3/20/07, David Zeuthen wrote: > On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 13:03 -0400, m. allan noah wrote: > > > > > i would rather see a more general, non-linux specific method of > > > > > handling buttons. how about a daemon that runs, gets the sane device > > > > > list in the normal way, and then monitors ea

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 13:03 -0400, m. allan noah wrote: > > > > i would rather see a more general, non-linux specific method of > > > > handling buttons. how about a daemon that runs, gets the sane device > > > > list in the normal way, and then monitors each of the found devices > > > > for button

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

> > > i would rather see a more general, non-linux specific method of > > > handling buttons. how about a daemon that runs, gets the sane device > > > list in the normal way, and then monitors each of the found devices > > > for button presses as regular sane options. > > That's essentially what I

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

On 3/20/07, ?tienne Bersac wrote: > Hi allan, > > > it would be nice if some of the linux gnome devels would engage in > > SANE discussions on the SANE lists. they might learn something about > > the hardware they are trying to support :) button handling comes up > > here quite a bit, you should s

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

> 1. you need a piece of code that understands the button-reading > protocol for every scanner that sane supports. you will end up > replicating a fair bit of code that is already (hopefully) in > sane-backends, esp. for devices that require a bit of initialization > before they can communicate. A

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

David Zeuthen wrote: >> Looks good to me, as long as the added code in SANE is properly >> #ifdef'd out etc. Let's try not to turn SANE into a Linux-specific >> piece of code :) > > Yeah, it would all be #ifdef'ed out (btw, HAL runs on Solaris and > FreeBSD too these days) I know, but I doubt it

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

> What would be the impact in terms of: > - added code > - added library dependencies (and here I'm especially worried about >bringing in the infamous GLib for the DBus stuff in dll.c, so if we >could avoid it, that'd be nice) Just my $0.02: D-BUS doesn't need GLib - it's got its own low

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 12:17 -0400, m. allan noah wrote: > of course, now that i think about it, this idea has the same problem > of device ownership/locking. i suppose you could change every backend > to lock open devices (plustek does this already?), and every front-end > would have to send/accept

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 09:01 -0500, m. allan noah wrote: > it would be nice if some of the linux gnome devels would engage in > SANE discussions on the SANE lists. they might learn something about > the hardware they are trying to support :) button handling comes up > here quite a bit, you should se

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 12:18 +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: > David Zeuthen wrote: > > Hi, > > > So I'm curious if a) you think this is a good idea; and b) whether such > > a patch would be able to go into mainline SANE? Thanks for considering! > > Looks good to me, as long as the added code in SAN

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

of course, now that i think about it, this idea has the same problem of device ownership/locking. i suppose you could change every backend to lock open devices (plustek does this already?), and every front-end would have to send/accept signals based on lock ownership? sounds ugly... allan On 3/20

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

"Donald Straney" wrote: > Just my $0.02: D-BUS doesn't need GLib - it's got its own low-level C > API in libdbus, and it would take maybe 20 lines of code (if not less) > to get a D-BUS connection, call the appropriate method (a method would I know that, but most people use GLib for that, for wh

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

David Zeuthen wrote: Hi, > So I'm curious if a) you think this is a good idea; and b) whether such > a patch would be able to go into mainline SANE? Thanks for considering! Looks good to me, as long as the added code in SANE is propery #ifdef'd out etc. Let's try not to turn SANE into a Linux-s

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 10:31 +0100, Julien BLACHE wrote: > David Zeuthen wrote: > > Hi, > > > Is it possible anyone can apply / comment on this? Thanks! > > It's in. Great, thanks a lot! Another thing; one of the things we're looking at in GNOME is making the buttons on the scanners work; there

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

David Zeuthen wrote: Hi, > Is it possible anyone can apply / comment on this? Thanks! It's in. JB. -- Julien BLACHE GPG KeyID 0xF5D65169

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

David Zeuthen wrote: Hi, > Is it possible anyone can apply / comment on this? Thanks! I'll take a look at merging your changes tomorrow. If you don't here from me tomorrow, don't hesitate to ping me. JB. -- Julien BLACHE

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

Hi again, Is it possible anyone can apply / comment on this? Thanks! David On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 20:27 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: > On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 20:22 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: > > Hi, > > And since my original message is being held for being too big, here's > the full text. T

[sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file

t: [sane-devel] Re: [PATCH] generate hal fdi file In-Reply-To: <1172884934.2639.99.ca...@zelda.fubar.dk> References: <1172884934.2639.99.ca...@zelda.fubar.dk> Message-ID: <1172885247.2639.104.ca...@zelda.fubar.dk> On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 20:22 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote: > Hi,