On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:15:16PM +0100, wm4 wrote: > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 08:45:52 +0100 > Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Clément Bœsch <u...@pkh.me> wrote: > > > From: Clément Bœsch <clem...@stupeflix.com> > > > > I hope this is going in a direction most developers like. If it's not > > > the case, I'm of course open to any reworking but please be specific. > > > > I'm quite confused by this approach, it doesn't really seem to > > correspond at all to what we talked about earlier. > > You can't really put a high-level async API on our low-level sync API, > > we should start re-thinking the low level API first. > > > > The first goal should be to get to a new low level API that implements > > decoupled m:n output, then you could build a high-level API on top of > > that, if you wanted something like that. > > Such a low level API would easily integrate into other frameworks, > > while this async API seems to be rather rigid and may be rather > > troublesome to integrate into existing workflows. > > > > I have to agree. It's just not what I expected. While I think having a > higher level API in FFmpeg would be very good, the async m:n API is > what we really need. > > Besides that, the presented API looks pretty rigid and inflexible. This > is basically the wrong way to start. If you start with a high level > API, all effort should be put into making that API _good_, and not > making its implementation a playground for low level API improvements.
Alright. Well I was kind of expecting such comments, so sure, OK. I guess I was trying to solve several issues at a time. Patch withdraw for now (but I'm probably going to continue to work a bit on it locally). [...] -- Clément B.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel