Hi again,
I just realized that I confused the terms here. Please replace "Processing
Node" by "Processor Item" in my previous email.
Sorry!
Georg
On Saturday 10 January 2009, Georg Martius wrote:
> Hi Francesco,
>
> You know that I am rather new to transcode so please keep this in mind when
> reading my comments ;-)
> I just want to say that I like the idea to have a sequence of processing
> nodes with little streams between each node.
> I would like to add that also the properties structures have to be
> processed through the processing chain. What I mean is that every
> processing node can change the frame-size, frame-color model and so on.
> Each node just gets the structure information from the previous one, that's
> it. I believe the meta information and the actual frame should be
> dislinked. The meta data is not changing over the processing time and has
> to be saved for each intermediate stream whereas the frame-data changes.
>
> I see the following:
>
> Processing Processing
> -> Stream -> -> ....
> Node1 Node 2
>
> where Stream has a FIFO (sliding window type) for frames and meta-data.
> Frame number or only valid within a stream. If we would limit the
> multiprocessing to one thread per Processing Node then there is also not
> problem with out-of-order frames. In the case we need more threads per Node
> I suggest to have a small multithread wrapper around the particular Nodes
> that need it. Nodes that might clone or skip frames might not be necessary
> to run in parallel and have therefore less problems with framenumbers.
>
> Concerning the move to a new executeable I fear that if we share the same
> modules we might block ourselves since we cannot change their interface.
> I would make a change to the next major release (1.2.0).
>
> I see the scripting interface totally decoupled from the change in the core
> architecture. The latter is a backend change and the scripting interface
> is "just" a way to control things, so a frontend.
>
> Regards!
> Georg
>
