Malcolm Caldwell wrote: > 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...
You mean like a default libv4l with basic "policy" compression/uncompression and a libpwc or libse401 type library for more advanced and webcam specific compression/uncompression type stuff? (showing my ignorance er.. newbieness through careful word play) altoine _______________________________________________ Video4linux-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list
