>You ask the wrong question. The people do not close their frontend and this
>would make it impossible for the others to scan when the device is locked.
Man, Oliver, you must have a lot of very cranky and forgetful people where
you work; this seems to be a serious problem for you!
It seems to
Henning Meier-Geinitz schrieb:
> Depends on what is more important for you. There is not only the
> privacy problem, you don't even know if the scanner you want to use is
> the same, after you have closed the device file.
>
> This is especially a problem with hot-pluggable devices like USB. If
>
Matto Marjanovic schrieb:
> I don't see how not locking the device continuously from sane_open() to
> sane_close() has any advantage, aside from not requiring users to quit
> xsane when they are done with a job.
You ask the wrong question. The people do not close their frontend and this
would m
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 01:25:43PM -0400, Matto Marjanovic wrote:
> Furthermore (last thoughts before I go to work)...
Last thought before I go to bed (not really) :-)
> The ADF problem could be fixed with the addition of a single, new, kind-of-
> -well-known-option. It would be a boolean
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 12:16:13PM -0400, Matto Marjanovic wrote:
> Couldn't this be implemented as an ADF-like feature of a backend?
Probably yes. That's a good idea, at least until we have a better
solution.
> A backend for a scanner with a handy button could have a "multiple pages
> via
Matto Marjanovic, Mittwoch, 11. September 2002 18:16:
> >I've lost a little bit track of what you've already discussed, but as a
> > user, what I would think is a nice feature is when I can take a bunch of
> > papers, sit beside the scanner and only need to press the scanner button
> > each tim
Oliver Rauch, Mittwoch, 11. September 2002 15:21:
> > Don't know, whether I understand this correctly, but isn't this a huge
> > security/privacy problem?
> > Let's say, user A starts his frontend, stands up, walks to the scanner
> > and puts some confidential or at least private document on the sc
I've lost a little bit track of what you've already discussed, but as a user,
what I would think is a nice feature is when I can take a bunch of papers,
sit beside the scanner and only need to press the scanner button each time,
without grabbing mouse, clicking here and there... Last time I trie
mh schrieb:
>
> Oliver Rauch, Mittwoch, 11. September 2002 12:55:
> > Henning Meier-Geinitz schrieb:
> > On my work I think it is normal that 5 people have the frontend(xsane)
> > opened at the same time, all use the same scanner.
> >
> > With network scanning it really would be bad if one opens a
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 12:55:07PM +0200, Oliver Rauch wrote:
> That is not the way a backend should be implemented.
> The backend should store all backend options until sane_start is called.
> When sane_start is called it should transmit all values to the scanner.
>
> This way several fronte
Oliver Rauch, Mittwoch, 11. September 2002 12:55:
> Henning Meier-Geinitz schrieb:
> On my work I think it is normal that 5 people have the frontend(xsane)
> opened at the same time, all use the same scanner.
>
> With network scanning it really would be bad if one opens a frontend
> and keeps it ru
> has an ADF, we're all set (assuming ADF's are handled properly, which they
> aren't quite).
...
>The user still has to initiate the whole process ("start ADF scan") from
> the frontend, but then she slides her chair over to the scanner for the
> duration of her document.
Furthermore (last
Henning Meier-Geinitz schrieb:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 12:27:52AM +0200, Oliver Rauch wrote:
> > The button protocoll should not be implemented this way.
> > The button protocoll has to be network safe. Imagine what happens
> > when 10 frontends poll the buttons at the same time and s
>I don't know, whether you've read my first posting, but the only problem is,
>that there's no way for a frontend to detect whether a button has been
>pressed. What Norman Urs Baier requests is a job for the *frontend* and not
>for the backend :-)
...But, my little epiphany was that if the
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 12:27:52AM +0200, Oliver Rauch wrote:
> The button protocoll should not be implemented this way.
> The button protocoll has to be network safe. Imagine what happens
> when 10 frontends poll the buttons at the same time and someone
> does press a button, then up to 10 di
>I've lost a little bit track of what you've already discussed, but as a user,
>what I would think is a nice feature is when I can take a bunch of papers,
>sit beside the scanner and only need to press the scanner button each time,
>without grabbing mouse, clicking here and there... Last tim
>This way several frontends can open the same device and the options are
>set independant.
>
>On my work I think it is normal that 5 people have the frontend(xsane)
>opened at the same time, all use the same scanner.
I don't see how not locking the device continuously from sane_open() to
san
Henning Meier-Geinitz, Freitag, 6. September 2002 21:11:
...
> What should the frontend do when pressing a button? Ask for parameters
> or immediately start the action with default/selected parameters?
This should be completely up to the frontend.
> > Or is there a better/an easier way to make t
Oliver Rauch, Samstag, 7. September 2002 00:27:
...
> Yes.
> The button protocoll should not be implemented this way.
> The button protocoll has to be network safe. Imagine what happens
> when 10 frontends poll the buttons at the same time and someone
> does press a button, then up to 10 different
Henning Meier-Geinitz schrieb:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 02:27:33PM +0200, mh wrote:
> > would it be possible, to add an option called "button-state" to saneopts.h ?
> > "button-state" is an option of SANE_TYPE_INT with SANE_UNIT_NONE and
> > SANE_CONSTRAINT_NONE and capability SANE_CAP
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 02:27:33PM +0200, mh wrote:
> would it be possible, to add an option called "button-state" to saneopts.h ?
> "button-state" is an option of SANE_TYPE_INT with SANE_UNIT_NONE and
> SANE_CONSTRAINT_NONE and capability SANE_CAP_SOFT_DETECT (i.e. a read-only
> option).
On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Oliver Rauch wrote:
> Yes.
> The button protocoll should not be implemented this way.
> The button protocoll has to be network safe. Imagine what happens
> when 10 frontends poll the buttons at the same time and someone
> does press a button, then up to 10 different people do s
Hi,
would it be possible, to add an option called "button-state" to saneopts.h ?
"button-state" is an option of SANE_TYPE_INT with SANE_UNIT_NONE and
SANE_CONSTRAINT_NONE and capability SANE_CAP_SOFT_DETECT (i.e. a read-only
option).
If a frontend detects such an option, it can use a timer to q
23 matches
Mail list logo
