On 8/11/2022 11:03 PM, Timo Rothenpieler wrote: > Any kind of built in hardcoded server is not acceptable imo. > Even with it pointing to our own infrastructure, we can't really > guarantee its availability, specially should the protocol gain traction > and heavy use.
I agree... we should never send a users data through *any* service they haven't explicitly asked for. Ever. Regardless of who runs it and who is deemed "trustworthy". > The patch wasn't on my radar at all. I had assumed it was actually > implementing IPFS in some fashion. Yes, I had assumed the same too, and thus wasn't following the sets at all. As it exists right now though, I don't really see why lavf needs what amounts to a URL builder for a service as a "protocol" - this totally the wrong layer to do that at... - Derek _______________________________________________ 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".
