On 3/22/18, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: > Josh de Kock (2018-03-22): >> There is always the option to just merge lavf and lavd. The state of them >> being sort-of merged, but not really, isn't very good and adds a lot of >> complexity especially in inter-library dependencies (which are unneeded >> if >> lavf and lavd are either merged or actually separate). > > You are driving your reasoning the wrong way: you start from the > limitations of your new API, and based on what it can do you intent huge > changes to the project that affect user interface. It should be the > opposite: first decide on the user interface and general design, and > then make sure the API allow it. > > For user interface, I state: > > 1. FFmpeg should allow users to select devices the same way as > (de)muxers, because it allows them to use devices in a basic way even > when applications are not explicitly prepared for them, that makes > extra features for free. > > Hence, I deduce: > > 2. All lavf APIs should treat devices the same way as (de)muxers. > > And I still think that the better option is to revert the new API and > design a new new one, learning from the small mistakes of this one.
Please, for once just leave this project. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
