Josh de Kock (2018-03-22): > move lavd avinputformats and avoutputformats into lavf > > delete lavd
Possibly ok in principle for me, but see below. > write new lavd aimed at actual devices There are already such libraries, we do not need another. The basic devices with a (de)muxer API are quite right to give many extra features with little extra cost. But why are we discussing this? It seems to me that the discussion went approximately like this: "Darn, the faucet I just bought to fix the leaky one does not fit the pipes. Well, I guess I will have to redo the whole plumbing to make it fit." The correct way of addressing the problem is to buy a new faucet with the correct size. And cut the losses if the first one cannot be refunded. I feel like the discussion is largely fueled by the cognitive bias known as "sunk cost fallacy": due to efforts invested in a solution, become attached emotionally to it and fail to see when it proves to cause more costs than benefits. Can we at least REALLY CONSIDER this: 1. Acknowledge that this issue about lavd, on top of Michael's early concerns about registering external components, has proven that the all-static approach, while elegant in many ways, is not practical. 2. Agree to revert the API as it is and discuss a better solution. 3. As for the better solution, I really propose to register the components (with av_register_something calls, like now) into an array rather than a linked list (like your proposal) that is stored in a user-provided structure that can exist in several instances (new), with a global instance of that structure for temporary compatibility. Note that with this proposal, your efforts are not wasted: most of the code can be reused, and they have taught us a valuable lesson on top of that. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
