On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 23:20:40 +1100 Jean-Yves Avenard <jyaven...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 January 2016 at 20:51, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Anyway, as another point I would argue: > > - discouraging web devs from creating too many video elements, and > > introducing a static "reasonable" limit (maybe a dozen elements) > > You're kidding right? So what, you just don't display the video > because really it was a silly idea in creating such page? This feels very weird. I'm complaining that you want web pages to create hundreds of video elements, and then I'm asked whether I'm kidding. Would you complain that a car doesn't move if you try to load it with hundreds of tons of stuff? Teach the web devs that some resources are just expensive, and everything will be fine. > The world is moving from Flash to HTML5. Those web sites exist > *today*, they are moving to html5 progressively (and we want to make > them move to html5) > > > > - not using MT for very small video (MT would probably make it slower > > anyway) > > Even with one thread per decoder, it's still not enough. Even by your > example, it would be silly to open 30 threads to play 30 videos when > your processor is unable to handle all those thread concurrently > anyway. Then don't create 30 threads. > A task queue would perform just as well with 4/30th of the RAM > (assuming you created the thread pool with 4 threads). _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
