On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 01:53, Josh de Kock <j...@itanimul.li> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020, at 10:32 PM, Josh Allmann wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 at 14:40, Josh de Kock <j...@itanimul.li> wrote: > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Josh de Kock <j...@itanimul.li> > > > --- > > > configure | 29 +- > > > doc/APIchanges | 4 + > > > doc/writing_filters.txt | 6 +- > > > libavfilter/allfilters.c | 823 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- > > > libavfilter/avfilter.c | 50 +-- > > > libavfilter/avfilter.h | 29 +- > > > libavfilter/version.h | 3 + > > > 7 files changed, 489 insertions(+), 455 deletions(-) > > > > > > > This is a couple years too late, but wanted to drop a note that this > > particular API change was breaking : it made avfilter_register a > > no-op. The consequence is that it's much more difficult to maintain > > filters out-of-tree; preserving the old behavior without changes to > > user code requires a special build of ffmpeg that has the filter > > configured/compiled in. The recommended workaround of using > > avfilter_graph_alloc_filter requires more effort to wire the filter in > > explicitly. It also doesn't allow for conveniences such as using > > avfilter_graph_parse, since there doesn't seem to be a way to make > > filters accessible via avfilter_get_by_name outside of ffmpeg compile > > time. > > > > If there is another workaround that I'm missing, please let me know, > > or if there's some deeper rationale for the decision to disable this > > feature. > > This was actually an intentional change, there was some trouble with how > external codecs/filters/etc should be handled. > > Since this was an unsupported use-case which was quite sensitive to ABI the > change was there to explicitly prevent people (ab)using the API like this. It > was also to prepare for potentially a new API to implement this in a proper > fashion (but as you can see this was never completed). > > I did begin working on this again a little while back but due to an > unfortunate > data-loss I will have to start from scratch to continue working on it (yes, > yes > 'where's your backup?' I know). It's likely to be something I will be working > on in the future since I will be doing FFmpeg stuff again soon. > > There is also the discussion of 'do we want this?' from a more ideological > perspective which we will have to re-discuss, maybe something like gstreamer > is > more suited for the majority of the use-cases (?). >
Thanks for the explanation Josh. For what it's worth, count me as being at least one API user for which out-of-tree filter capability would be very helpful. (And to preempt some other reactions, "use gstreamer" is not really helpful for us either...) Josh _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
