Le septidi 7 frimaire, an CCXXIV, wm4 a écrit :
> I still do not see how a potential flag to make the API user to be able
> to use this is better than running the demuxer in a thread. I'm talking
> about practice, not theory. Such a flag would work _sometimes_, with
> _some_ demuxers in _some_ very
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:53:33 +0100
Nicolas George wrote:
> Le septidi 7 frimaire, an CCXXIV, wm4 a écrit :
> > I might not be familiar with flvdec in particular. Can you explain me
> > how Matroska could be switched to non-blocking?
>
> It can not, and this has NOTHING to do with the current d
Le septidi 7 frimaire, an CCXXIV, wm4 a écrit :
> I might not be familiar with flvdec in particular. Can you explain me
> how Matroska could be switched to non-blocking?
It can not, and this has NOTHING to do with the current discussion.
Non-blocking mode requires the demuxer to be able to stop at
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 13:32:30 +0100
Nicolas George wrote:
> Le septidi 7 frimaire, an CCXXIV, wm4 a écrit :
> > Not really.
>
> EARGUMENTNOTFOUND.
Neither have I. In your posts.
Can you just try explaining what you want to achieve, instead of
writing lots of text with no content? I have no ti
Le septidi 7 frimaire, an CCXXIV, wm4 a écrit :
> Not really.
EARGUMENTNOTFOUND.
> Well, unlike with peace in middle-east, everyone already figured out
> that threads are a good solution to I/O.
Argumentum ad numerum fallacy.
Experienced people figured out that threads are a BAD solution to I/O
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:21:08 +0100
Nicolas George wrote:
> Le sextidi 6 frimaire, an CCXXIV, wm4 a écrit :
> > I fail to see how letting such a workaround (required for flv) leak to
>
> ... and a few other demuxers...
>
> > common code is more elegant.
>
> You fail to see, but I do, and I
Le sextidi 6 frimaire, an CCXXIV, Ronald S. Bultje a écrit :
> I +1 this design comment, I have some (...) reservations about adding
> EAGAIN2 (which is really what this is) to our public API (which is really
> what this is).
Would you care to address my arguments in your own words?
Note that the
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:08 PM, wm4 wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 20:46:25 +0100
> Nicolas George wrote:
>
> > Le sextidi 6 frimaire, an CCXXIV, wm4 a écrit :
> > > Better do the looping internal in flvdec.c (if there's no huge number
> > > of other demuxers which need this), instead of add
Le sextidi 6 frimaire, an CCXXIV, wm4 a écrit :
> I fail to see how letting such a workaround (required for flv) leak to
... and a few other demuxers...
> common code is more elegant.
You fail to see, but I do, and I am not alone:
http://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2015-October/18068
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 20:46:25 +0100
Nicolas George wrote:
> Le sextidi 6 frimaire, an CCXXIV, wm4 a écrit :
> > Better do the looping internal in flvdec.c (if there's no huge number
> > of other demuxers which need this), instead of adding a new error code
> > that is also part of the public API.
Le sextidi 6 frimaire, an CCXXIV, wm4 a écrit :
> Better do the looping internal in flvdec.c (if there's no huge number
> of other demuxers which need this), instead of adding a new error code
> that is also part of the public API.
There are a few, but not many. This was my first intent, but loopi
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 19:47:54 +0100
Nicolas George wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas George
> ---
> libavformat/flvdec.c | 14 +++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/libavformat/flvdec.c b/libavformat/flvdec.c
> index ca73969..96fff68 100644
> --- a/liba
Signed-off-by: Nicolas George
---
libavformat/flvdec.c | 14 +++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libavformat/flvdec.c b/libavformat/flvdec.c
index ca73969..96fff68 100644
--- a/libavformat/flvdec.c
+++ b/libavformat/flvdec.c
@@ -882,7 +882,7 @@ retry:
13 matches
Mail list logo
