On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 16:18:53 +0000 Paul B Mahol <one...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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? Well yes, C doesn't have reflection, but I doubt AVOption is a good replacement for that. But you still could fall back to awkward things like messing with AVClasses if you really need. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
