On 9/27/2017 12:01 PM, wm4 wrote: > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 16:34:49 +0200 > Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 02:18:13PM +0100, Josh de Kock wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> There is no point of having these output devices as all the >>> functionality is contained in the 'ffplay' tool. If people wanted to >>> integrate these devices in their own programs instead of using the >>> ffmpeg tool then they are far too constrained for proper control, not to >> >>> mention output devices have been quick hacky in libavdevice for a long >> >> then please write a better API / lib / system > > It should never have been added this way. Why did it happen? On that > note, I tried to prevent it, and to argue that the contributor should > have created a better API instead of badly hacking it into libavdevice. > > Why do you suddenly think there is a strong argument for keeping it? > >>> time. There are three patches attached to deprecate the SDL2, OpenGL, >>> and libcaca devices. >> >> Once a better system exists with these features this can be deprecated. > >> requiring each user application to directly support each API of each >> of these systems is very inconvenient for all but the large applications > > There are entire frameworks for abstracting these things. libavdevice > is one of them, but only as a joke. > >> Indeed the large applications benefit from the absence of a single API >> as they eliminate competition from smaller apps which are unable to >> maintain support for a wide range of output devices. >> >> I think a good API that supports a wide range of in/out devices would >> be very usefull for smaller/simpler applications using the libs > > Name a user of these APIs. > > Your argumentation is full of fallacies. We don't actually do any of > those things for applications. As far as I'm aware, only the person who > added this API is even using it. Are you even aware that ffplay doesn't > use this API? > > I'm sick of this attitude to keep bad/broken stuff just so that we > "have it". Supporting a feature is meaningless if it's low quality. > Maybe one day you will learn this.
We can't just remove something that works and has a defined use, as much as it's disliked, without at least come up with a replacement or a good reason why it's being dropped without a replacement. And by good reason i mean something like "This is in the way of this other useful thing that we're trying to add/achieve". If that happens, i assume not a lot of people will speak in favor of lavd. > > I can't way for the day libavdevice or libavfilter will grow a UI > toolkit. > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
