Glimpse in kdereview

[Jonathan Marten]

Kåre Särs <kare.sars at kolumbus.fi> writes:
> I agree that two libraries that does the same thing is probably not a good 
> idea so here I have a list why I think libksane would be the better one :)
> (I'm comparing to libkscan of KDE3)
>
> 1) libkscan has a hardcoded user interface with fixed options while libksane 
> has a dynamic interface that shows available options.
>
> 2) libkscan has a small fixed subset of the possible options that the sane 
> backends can provide, while libksane provides most* available options grouped 
> in 'Basic' and 'Other' options.
>
> 3) libkscan provides the image in a QImage, which means that 16bit per color 
> is not possible. libksane provides the data in a QByteArray (plus format 
> info), with 16bit per color support.

Sounds like libkscan is definitely the better choice, then.  Certainly
(3) is the brick wall for >8bpp support in Kooka, getting past that
would involve a big rewrite of libkscan which is pointless if libksane
has already done that.

Time to take a look at libksane, I think...

Regards, Jonathan

-- 
Jonathan Marten                         http://www.keelhaul.demon.co.uk
Twickenham, UK