On 8 January 2016 at 12:43, wm4 <nfx...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 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
I think the idea of a threadpool is a good idea - we have usecases where we want to make a videowall of HD material with like 30 HD sources that need to all be deinterlaced then scaled etc. But it shouldn't be a global threadpool - it should be a generic threadpool that could even be used by non-FFmpeg tasks. Presumably you would attach it to a decoder and the decoder would use it (very handwavy I know). Kieran _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
