On 1/25/15, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:39:10 +0100 > Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at> wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 01:18:31PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 12:15:40PM +0100, Reimar Doeffinger wrote: >> > > On 25.01.2015, at 03:08, Michael Niedermayer <michae...@gmx.at> wrote: >> > > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 02:31:33AM +0100, wm4 wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >>>> >> > > >>>> As an experienced API user, I don't have the slightest clue what >> > > >>>> I'd do >> > > >>>> with this API, or where to find information about it. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> the primary goal is to remove duplicated disposition type tables, >> > > >>> which needs one of the tables to be public first >> > > >>> >> > > >>> [...] >> > > >> >> > > >> And this is the most awkward way you could find to do this? >> > > > >> > > > No, i could certainly find a more akward way, if people prefer >> > > > >> > > > this is just the way that would be a big step towards consistent >> > > > and simple access to the structs >> > > > All public structs use AVClass and AVOptions to allow applications >> > > > to extract/enumerate fields except a few like AVStream >> > > > this patch would add these AVClass & AVOption for AVStream, its >> > > > indeed not populated for all fields and AVStream doesnt have a >> > > > AVClass as its first field due to ABI. But its a step toward it >> > > > >> > > > Would people prefer that each field in AVStream has a custom and >> > > > different way to access it, as long as it looks simpler when looked >> > > > at in isolation ? >> > > >> > > Sorry if it's useless of me to only state some obvious questions, but: >> > > I think it's clear we all want a simple, obvious and consistent API :) >> > > If it's a bit messy, might there be a point in holding off a bit so we >> > > aren't stuck with something complicated? >> > > Could possibly another approach after a major bump be nicer? >> > > Or maybe better documentation/examples? >> > >> > > I think this started with a valid complaint/concern but unfortunately >> > > no better alternative, could we stick to considering that instead of >> > > going over to agressive rhethoric? >> > >> > absolutley >> > i would strongly prefer if others could take this over, my interrest >> > was just in the technical side and i wanted to move AVStream to >> > the same system we use for all other structs. As well as fixing the >> > quite valid issue nicolas had raised with the duplicated tables. >> > I am quite surprised that others dont see this as a clear and >> > uncontroversal step, there really are just >> > 1. If we want AVStream to be consistent with other structs, that means >> > AVOption & AVClass. And this patch is a step toward it, one could >> > make a bigger or smaller step but its then either more or less >> > code not different code. >> > 2. There could be a different system be used for this field or for >> > AVStream, this would be inconsistent >> > 3. We can implement both a system based on AVOptions/AVClass and a >> > system without them, why would this field that noone cared about >> > until now need this, iam not sure though >> > 4. We can leave the triplicated tables as is and hope not to forget >> > updating them in sync >> > >> > To me the best choice is clear, move toward the same system we use >> > elsewhere. Change that system everywhere if it could be improved >> > I see nothing controversal on this patch but others do apparently. >> > As i dont see what issue people have with this, i certainly cannot >> > help fixing the patch. But iam happy to review & approve the solution >> > that people do prefer >> >> About the documentation & example side, i dont think this should yet >> be used from outside, its only a partial implementation of AVOption >> for AVStream, a full implementation needs a ABI bump due to the >> first field needing to be a AVClass >> >> [...] >> > > How is it even consistent with "other structs"? Doesn't it just resolve > flags? Resolving flags with a complicated AVOption contraption (which > every user has to understand and duplicate) doesn't seem like a good > choice to me at all. I hear about API users fighting with the basics of > the FFmpeg API because it's so weird and complicated; seeing patches > like this just feel like a bad joke in contrast. > > What's wrong with: > > int av_parse_disposition_flags(const char *s); > > ?
How than one can know which flags are available? > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel