Le 7 mai 08 à 21:37, Juuso Alasuutari a écrit : > Stéphane Letz wrote: >> Video in jack1 won't happen because of several reasons that can be >> explained again: we want to fix and release jack1 soon and video >> in jack is a too big change to be integrated in the current state >> of the proposed patch. >> The future of jack is now jack2, based on the jackdmp new >> implementation (http://www.grame.fr/~letz/jackdmp.html). A lot of >> work has already been done in this code base that is now API >> equivalent to jack2. New features are already worked on like the >> DBUS based control (developed in the "control" branch) and NetJack >> rework (developed in the "network" branch). >> I think a combined "video + audio in a unique server" approach is >> perfectly possible: this would require having 2 separated graph >> for audio and video running at their own rate. Video and audio >> would be done in different callbacks and thus handled in different >> threads (probably running at 2 different priorities so that audio >> can "interrupt" video). Obviously doing that the right way would >> require a bit of work, but is probably much easier to design and >> implement in jackd2 codebase. >> Thus I think a better overall approach to avoid "video jack fork" >> is to work in this direction, possibly by implementing video jack >> with the "separated server" idea first (since is is easier to >> implement). This could be started right away in a jack2 branch. > > I'll throw in my 2 Euro cents. > > If the VideoJACK crowd feels that JACK2 development is taking too > slow and decide to continue with their fork, may I suggest that we > all still discuss and draft a proper video API together? If a fork > happens out of practical reasons, it would be best to make sure > that switching video software to use JACK2 later on will be as > painless as possible. > > Technical issues aside, I wish that those affiliated with VideoJACK > do not feel that their needs are neglected by the JACK developers. > I hope that the recent discussion has proved that people in this > camp are willing to improve JACK in this respect. Perhaps we could > move on and try to find more common ground? > > Juuso
Yes sure. Where is the latest state of the video patch for jack? I can have a look and see how easy/difficult it would be to implement that in a jackdmp/jack2 branch. Stephane _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
