On Fri, 2002-03-22 at 09:29, Mark McClelland wrote: > Billy Biggs wrote: > > > I think you're right though. Instead of doing a libv4l that nobody > >would use, we should work on having lots of libs with inconsistent > >interfaces, but at least the code would be shared. > >
I think a library is needed. It should be fairly minimal. Perhaps just color conversion etc. Why should my application have code written specifically for every different broken webcam that exists? Some kind of extensible minimal library may be desirable. That way we could get the webcam decompression code out of the kernel. No more closed source kernel modules... I would say a minimal, easy to use, library would be used. I would say that every v4l programmer started with xawtv and worked from there. If xawtv were re-written to use the new library then things should be sweet. I don't think scaling, de-interlacing, etc belong in such a library. > How about a minimal libv4l with a consistent interface for the other > libraries to "plug in" to? That way, libv4l would provide a standard > mechanism without enforcing the "policy" of a particular deinterlacer, > scaler, etc... > > -- > Mark McClelland > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Video4linux-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list > _______________________________________________ Video4linux-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list
