> Can you (or anybody else) elaborate on this a bit? I'm very > familiar with the vic code and somewhat familiar with the rat > code and I wouldn't describe either one as "inflexible". I > agree with comments made by others that the user interfaces > are long overdue for an overhaul. But the core code (the > rtp implementation, the codecs, the rendering path, etc.) > are all very solid and well-designed.
Rat is mostly OK, it could just do with a plugin method of handling drivers rather than the compile-time linking. It's use of MBus for IPC is interesting but not really appropriate and introduces a whole new class of problems, sockets or pipes would be better. Vic has too much reliance on TCL, and its method of the drivers returning values by building up TCL strings to be eval'ed is just frightening; that needs to go. The RTP implementation has problems, mostly to do with the age of the code. I've started addressing some of the issues (see http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/web-mail-archive/lists/ag-tech/2004/11/msg00202.html), but other things have taken my time recently; I'm hoping to get back to it soon though. > Steve, when you say you're "cleaning up the core", are you referring > to the AG toolkit core or to the media tools? The media tools, as described above. Cheers, Steve
