HAL and scanners

[Martin Owens]

Or you could simply have both.

scanner.is_supported = there is at least one api
scanner.sane.is_supported = by sane api
scanner.sane.driver = backend name etc.

On 12/30/06, abel deuring <adeuring at gmx.net> wrote:
> Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 10:30 -0500, Joe Shaw wrote:
> >>>I don't think so.
> >>I disagree here.  We should always collect and present as much
> >>information about a device as possible, even if they're not yet
> >>supported by software.  The only thing more aggravating than attaching
> >>a
> >>piece of hardware and having it not work is attaching a piece of
> >>hardware that is identified as "Unknown device" and having it not
> >>work.
> >
> > Sure I can agree with this to some level - but i really think we should
> > only expose keys that convey useful information in this case; for
> > example:
> >
> > scanner.is_supported = false
> >
> > and not have:
> >
> > scanner.driver = "unknown"
>
> scanner.is_supported would be a good solution, but: if we allow more
> than one API or application in the scanner namespace (examples: Sane
> and vuescan; perhaps also Étienne's gnomescan API), the support
> information would probably come from different fdi files. Does HAL
> provide a sort of an "or" menchanism so that scanner.is_supported
> can be set to true, if the device is supported at least by one API,
> or should we use scanner.sane.is_supported,
> scanner.api-xyz.is_supported etc?
>
> Abel
> _______________________________________________
> hal mailing list
> hal at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/hal
>