On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 23:28:20 +1100 Jean-Yves Avenard <jyaven...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 January 2016 at 23:24, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > A global thread pool sounds like an extremely messy and unclean > > solution. The state of a library is not supposed to affect anything > > else in the same process. > > The point of my message was to start a discussion, not to receive > immediate answer ridiculing the idea and I have to say by someone who Sorry, the problem you're trying to solve is just too ridiculous. Threads might be the heaviest resource here, but no matter what you do, having hundreds of objects active at the same time (bring back geocity websites from the 90ies?) will cause a memory and CPU resource usage problem. So what if it fails on Windows XP. > clearly haven't done much work on highly parallelised application, and > who fail to even consider the problem. Maybe you're trying to argue from some sort of theoretical point of view, but I'm thinking about practical issues, such as managing a global thread pool. Regardless of "parallisation", for the problem at this is also an overcomplicated and inefficient solution. Plus I didn't even completely reject the idea of having some sort of thread pool. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
