On 15.09.2016 08:55, Josh de Kock wrote:
On 14/09/2016 23:44, Thomas Volkert wrote:
On 15.09.2016 00:27, Josh de Kock wrote:
Hi,
Resending this set with ffplay now having two versions, a SDL2 and a
SDL1 version. I've integrated all comments up until now (hopefully).
Josh
Josh de Kock (3):
lavd: Add SDL2 output device
ffplay: make copy for SDL1
MAINTAINERS: update my entries
Marton Balint (1):
ffplay: add SDL2 support
MAINTAINERS | 4 +-
Makefile | 1 +
configure | 35 ++-
ffplay.c | 599
+++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
ffplay.c => ffplay_sdl1.c | 1 -
Maintaining two versions of ffplay sounds as too much overhead to me. Is
it not possible to add some more code abstraction or even some simple
#ifdef constructs to support SDL1 as well as SDL2 in only one ffplay
version in parallel?
So, the actually used SDL version could be selected during the configure
step. After some months, the (hopefully) deprecated SDL1 code could be
dropped...
Yes, it is quite a bit of unnecessary overhead, but it's much cleaner
than #ifdeffery in a single source file.
In general, I don't like the idea of having 2 source files with almost
the same content. This usually indicates to me that the code structure
could be improved.
But ...you said you take over the maintenance which is needed. So, I am
fine with this step as long as the old file gets dropped soon (in terms
of months instead of years).
(And I also don't like a flood of #ifdefs. ;) )
Also, to change ffplay.c for most fixes as you'd have to reflect the
change on either side of the #ifdefs, so you don't gain anything from
not splitting the sources.
I agree for SDL related patches. This apparently has to be done for SDL1
as well as SDL2.
However, for other patches you have to do copy+paste to get them in both
ffplay source files.
But see above .. I am fine if you compensate this.
Best regards,
Thomas.
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
