>On 11/17/17, 4:31 PM, "Nicolas George" <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: > >Le sextidi 26 brumaire, an CCXXVI, Jeyapal, Karthick a écrit : >> I have done the change as suggested. Please find the new patch attached. > >Sorry, but I still have doubts about it. > >To begin with, -1 is not an acceptable error code. > >But what bothers me most is that on the two uses, one has an assert, the >other has an error return, the inconsistency looks suspicious. > >I think, at least, it should include a comment at both places to >indicate why the test is done like that. > >> I need to send ‘0’ byte http packet to indicate close. >> But ffurl_write doesn’t call http_write for a 0 byte packet. >> Hence, I am calling prot->url_write directly. > >Let me see if I understand correctly: are you saying that it is not >possible to perform multiple requests using only public APIs? I find it >suspicious, since multiple_requests is a public option. If that is true, >then it needs fixing.
Thanks for your reply. I have sent a new patch set v2 addressing your concerns. Yes, http multiple_requests option is not working as expected. Few days back a fix was done for read http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2017-November/219746.html As per your suggestion, I have added fix to the public api of http for write. Now hlsenc does not call prot->url_write directly in this new patch set. Thanks and regards, Karthick _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
