On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 23:41:40 +0300 (EEST), Martin Storsjö <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > > On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:30:54 +0200, Anton Khirnov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> /** Whether the server accepts the x-Dynamic-Rate header */ > >>> int accept_dynamic_rate; > >>> + > >>> + /** > >>> + * Various option flags for the RTSP muxer/demuxer. > >>> + */ > >>> + int rtsp_flags; > >>> } RTSPState; > >>> > >>> +#define RTSP_FLAG_FILTER_SRC 0x1 > >> > >> I would make this a separate option -- makes for less code, since you > >> can set rt->filter_source directly. > >> > > > > Disregard this, i wrote this before looking at the next patch. > > Though i wonder if using flags is really better. They require more > > knowledge from the user. > > I kind of prefer flags over int options for something that's really a > bool, specifying -filter_source 1 looks worse than -rtsp_flags > filter_source I think. Or maybe not? But it's all quite cosmetic which one > is chosen in this case, either one is doable for me in this case. > > Flags might feel more scalable if there's going to be many other bool > options, but I don't know if that really is the case...
Keep the flags if you prefer them, it's your code after all. The next patch is ok in that case. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
