On 2024-06-17 04:08 pm, Martin Storsjö wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jun 2024, Gyan Doshi wrote:
On 2024-06-15 03:54 am, Dennis Sädtler via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
On 2024-06-14 13:23, Gyan Doshi wrote:
On 2024-06-14 04:35 pm, Timo Rothenpieler wrote:
On 14/06/2024 12:44, Martin Storsjö wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024, Gyan Doshi wrote:
On 2024-06-14 02:18 am, Martin Storsjö wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024, Gyan Doshi wrote:
On 2024-06-13 06:20 pm, Martin Storsjö wrote:
I'd otherwise want to push this, but I'm not entirely
satisfied with the option name quite yet. I'm pondering if we
should call it "hybrid_fragmented" - any opinions, Dennis or
Timo?
How about `resilient_mode` or `recoverable`?
I agree that the how is secondary.
Those are good suggestions as well - but I think I prefer
"hybrid_fragmented" still.
In theory, I guess one could implement resilient writing in a
number of different ways, whereas the hybrid
fragmented/non-fragmented only is one.
So with a couple other voices agreeing with the name
"hybrid_fragmented", I'll post a new patch with the option in
that form - hopefully you don't object to it.
The term hybrid is not applicable here. The fragmented state is
transient during writing and contingent in the finished artifact
depending on how the writing process concluded.
Hybrid implies both modes available e.g.. a hybrid vehicle can
use both types of energy sources. The artifact here will be one
_or_ the other.
Sure, the file itself is either or, but the process of writing
will have utilized both. TBH, I don't see it as such a
black-or-white thing.
What do the others who have chimed in on the thread think,
compared to calling it "recoverable" or "resilient_mode"?
I don't have a super strong opinion on it, but out of the options
provided, I'd prefer the hybrid_ one, since there's a good chance
it'll become an established term now that OBS presents it quite
publicly visible.
The OBS dev intends to change the term:
"Come up with a better name than "Hybrid MP4" that hopefully won't
confuse users"
https://github.com/obsproject/obs-studio/pull/10608#issuecomment-2095222024
Regards,
Gyan
Now that it's merged and in the hands of users I don't have any
intention of changing the name any more.
We had some chats about about it, but nobody suggested anything that
people agreed was better, so it stuck.
While "resilient" certainly fits, it could equally apply to regular
fragmented MP4 (e.g. vMix uses that terminology for fMP4 if I'm not
mistaken).
The important attribute with this approach is that it's resilient
*and* compatible, and I'm still not sure how to get that across in
name alone.
How about `failsafe`?
I don't see how that differs from "resilient", as a regular fragmented
file also is failsafe (or resilient) in the same way - while the
special thing here is that it's both fragmented and not.
The expert user already knows to save a fragmented file if they want
resilience. This option saves them a remux step if the original writing
ends gracefully.
For all other users, the value proposition _is_ the resilience. If the
muxing ends normally, they just have a normal file. If it ends
prematurely, they just want to be able to convert to a regular seekable
MP4. The fact that it is saved in fragmented or any other mode is
irrelevant - an academic detail at best.
Ultimately, as long as the doc is clear about what the use of this
option is, and what to do next if the muxing does abort, it should not
matter too much what the option is called. But just like the faststart
flag name identifies the purpose instead of being called something like
moov_in_front, hopefully so will the name here.
Regards,
Gyan
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
