On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 12:32:29 +0100 Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote:
> Josh de Kock (2018-03-22): > > There is always the option to just merge lavf and lavd. The state of them > > being sort-of merged, but not really, isn't very good and adds a lot of > > complexity especially in inter-library dependencies (which are unneeded if > > lavf and lavd are either merged or actually separate). > > You are driving your reasoning the wrong way: you start from the > limitations of your new API, and based on what it can do you intent huge > changes to the project that affect user interface. It should be the > opposite: first decide on the user interface and general design, and > then make sure the API allow it. > > For user interface, I state: > > 1. FFmpeg should allow users to select devices the same way as > (de)muxers, because it allows them to use devices in a basic way even > when applications are not explicitly prepared for them, that makes > extra features for free. Devices are not muxers/demuxers and can behave significantly differently. Thus they should be accessible via a different API, and in particular avoid accidental use of device (de)muxers if only normal (de)muxers are wanted by the application. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
