L'octidi 28 frimaire, an CCXXV, Michael Niedermayer a écrit : > How does this patchset relate to the open-ness of the API ? > you arent saying anything about the plans, goals, intend of this (or > i missed it or fail to associate it with the patchset)
I am doing this to accommodate people who object to having a different view of AVFilterLink for the public API and the internal implementation, mostly Hendrik, Andreas and Clément. As for me, I am pretty happy with the current code that gives a different view of AVFilterLink to the public than the one used for implementation. Something like that is needed because some fields have a type that is not itself public. > Iam asking as it seems like this is moving libavfilter further away > from being "open" and centralizing control over filters more. > I most likely misinterpret this as i just see the change in the code > and dont know the whole story but IMO we should move toward a clean and > stable API that everyone can use. > That also implies to allow filters to only use public API. > while this patchset seems to make filters use more private api by > making more needed API private. I think a open API and external > filter support would drive developers and users towards libavfilter > while locking it down would likely do the opposit I am not sure I understand what you mean by openness. Do you mean applications writing their own filter and inserting it in a filter graph? If so, I can tell you it is not currently possible, and has not been since at least 2012-06-12 (9d0bfc5 lavfi: make AVFilterPad opaque after two major bumps.). Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
