When we want to make things simple and have it available soon why don`t we add a SANE_STATUS_DEVICE_PERMISSION_DENIED or something like that to the allowed sane status, and if necessary others too?
I think this does not break anything in SANE-1 Oliver On Saturday 29 November 2003 18:47, Julien BLACHE wrote: > Major A <and...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > >> If we're to change the standard, we can change the network protocol > >> too, and even more if we want a complete, secure rewrite of saned... > > > > It has nothing to do with the protocol itself whether or not saned is > > secure. If it isn't, why not rewrite it right away? > > The idea was that during the saned rewrite (given it happens someday) > we might want to modify the protocol for some reason, so that wouldn't > be a big deal anyway. > > >> Maybe, but at least it's still a simple, basic data type, and given > >> the way SANE status codes are defined, 16 bits are more than enough > >> for now. > > > > This sounds like Bill Gates to me. > > OK point taken :-) > > >> That's another way, but it looks like a kludge to me as options aren= 't > >> designed to report errors :) > > > > They are designed to do a lot of things, and clarifying (not > > reporting) errors would just be one more. > > I still think it's not the proper solution, and that options should > remain just that. > > > I don't understand why things have to be overcomplicated when there's > > such a simple solution. > > I'm all for a simple solution :-) I'm not trying to push my ideas, but > rather to start the discussion so we can find a simple solution that > does the job :) > > JB. --=20 http://www.xsane.org http://www.mostang.com/sane http://www.rauch-domain.de mailto:oliver.ra...@rauch-domain.de