Le septidi 7 thermidor, an CCXXIV, Jan Sebechlebsky a écrit : > I gave this a second thought, wouldn't it be better to simply ignore pkt > without payload? So after caller would send empty packet using > av_bsf_send_packet, he would get AVERROR(EAGAIN) from the next > av_bsf_receive_packet call (from the definition in documentation > AVERROR(EAGAIN) means "more data needed" when returned by > av_bsf_receive_packet). > However, if you think it is better to reserve packet without payload for > some future use, I won't object.
Both are possible, it is a matter of balance between convenience for us and convenience for the applications. If at some point someone finds a way to use that kind of packet. If they used to be ignored, it makes an incompatible API change. If they used to be forbidden, it works. The same logic applies for functions that return 0 for success or an AVERROR code: the documentation usually states ">= 0 for success", that allows to extend their return value later. In this particular case, I do not see how an application can accidentally send a completely empty packet, and therefore I think forbidding them is better. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
