# Re: May sane_init fail?

David Mosberger-Tang (David.Mosberger@acm.org)
Sun, 11 Apr 1999 13:54:16 -0700

- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
- Next message: Petter Reinholdtsen: "Re: May sane_init fail?"
- Previous message: Tripp Lilley: "Re: May sane_init fail?"
- In reply to: Petter Reinholdtsen: "Re: May sane_init fail?"
- Next in thread: Graham Stoney: "Re: May sane_init fail?"
- Next in thread: Petter Reinholdtsen: "Re: May sane_init fail?"
- Reply: Graham Stoney: "Re: May sane_init fail?"

>>>>> On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 22:44:52 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com> said:

Petter> The dll backend is checking for status != SANE_STATUS_GOOD
Petter> before accepting the backend.

Oops, you're right.

Petter> I'm not sure if any backends actually is using this, but I
Petter> beleave there should be a way for the backend to say "don't
Petter> use me", and that sane_init therefore should return
Petter> SANE_Status.

That's fine, but the backend must not rely on not being called anymore
after returning a status other than SANE_STATUS_GOOD in sane_init().

Petter> I suggest SANE_STATUS_GOOD if all is OK, and
Petter> SANE_STATUS_UNSUPPORTED if the backend beleave itself to be
Petter> useless.

I think the these status codes are potentially useful to return in
sane_init:

SANE_STATUS_GOOD
SANE_STATUS_UNSUPPORTED
SANE_STATUS_NO_MEM
SANE_STATUS_IO_ERROR
SANE_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED

--david

    --
    Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/
    To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com

- Next message: Petter Reinholdtsen: "Re: May sane_init fail?"
- Previous message: Tripp Lilley: "Re: May sane_init fail?"
- In reply to: Petter Reinholdtsen: "Re: May sane_init fail?"
- Next in thread: Graham Stoney: "Re: May sane_init fail?"
- Next in thread: Petter Reinholdtsen: "Re: May sane_init fail?"
- Reply: Graham Stoney: "Re: May sane_init fail?"