On 22/06/10 16:29, Toni Nikkanen wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 04:17:41PM +0100, Tomas Frydrych wrote: >> That completely misses the point; what would be a sound >> engineering reason for using an extra abstraction, when the >> abstraction sits on yet another abstraction perfectly capable to >> handle the 'all you want to do is play some movie or sound' >> gracefully ? Abstractions are never free, they cost resources and >> functionality, and as such should be avoided when not needed. So, >> why are we needing an abstraction above GStreamer ? > > I agree that abstraction layers have their cost and huge abstraction > towers are not something to strive for. > > But I do recognize the point in offering developers an unified Qt > API.
I see a point in offering developers a good, useful and proven API; whether it starts with 'Gst', 'Qt', or any other letters is secondary. > while at the same time trying to explain > why it is better than <insert some competing platform here> which has > a unified, clear API and well-integrated development tools and so > forth. Sure, but you build the tools for the platform, driven by your vision of what the platform as a whole should deliver. You do not put the tools people into the driving seat and build your platform around existing tools and their limitations, that will compromise the platform as whole. Tomas _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
