[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Some lavf renames

[Stefano Sabatini]

On date Friday 2009-02-06 01:08:43 +0100, Michael Niedermayer encoded:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:04:40PM +0100, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > On date Saturday 2009-01-31 01:15:42 +0100, Michael Niedermayer encoded:
> > > On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 01:08:37AM +0100, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > > > On date Thursday 2009-01-22 00:39:31 +0100, Diego Biurrun encoded:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 03:40:52AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:40:37PM +0100, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > > > > > > On date Tuesday 2009-01-20 12:09:20 -0800, Baptiste Coudurier encoded:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Ramiro Polla wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Wasn't there some discussion some time ago about renaming a bunch of
> > > > > > > > > functions? I think if we're going to rename some functions, we might
> > > > > > > > > as well rename all functions to be consistent and break API only once.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Yes, indeed. We will break API during next major dump, this is not going
> > > > > > > > to happen anytime soon.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I propose also these renames, people can add to the list:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > lavc:
> > > > > > > register_avcodec          -> avcodec_register()
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > lavf:
> > > > > > > ff_reduce_index           -> av_reduce_index
> > > > > > > av_register_input_format  -> avformat_register_input
> > > > > > > av_register_output_format -> avformat_register_output
> > > > > > > av_iformat_next           -> avformat_next_input
> > > > > > > av_oformat_next           -> avformat_next_output
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > i abstain from voting for a color but must note that you guys should
> > > > > > also consider that every rename will mean every app that use the function
> > > > > > needs to be updated, not sure if this justifies this cleanup.
> > > > > > Maybe it does but if i where maintaining some app i likely would be
> > > > > > primarely pissed about every rename that i had to deal with ...
> > > > > > But then its no big deal, if people want it, do the rename ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm generally in favor of the rename, just make sure that you do not
> > > > > overlook a few renames.
> > > > 
> > > > Is OK to start with these?
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > > av_register_all         -> avformat_register_all
> > > 
> > > iam against this one, it is not correct, this calls avcodec_register_all()
> > > internally and thus makingit look avformat specific is not good
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > register_codec          -> avcodec_register
> > > 
> > > iam ok with this one
> > 
> > Patches attached, regards.
> 
> ok

Applied.

What about these ones?

av_codec_next             -> avcodec_next

av_alloc_format_context   -> avformat_alloc_context
av_register_input_format  -> avformat_register_input
av_register_output_format -> avformat_register_output
av_iformat_next           -> avformat_next_input
av_oformat_next           -> avformat_next_output

Rename patch for av_alloc_format_context() attached.

Regards.
-- 
FFmpeg = Fierce and Free Mournful Portentous Extreme Gymnast
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rename-av-alloc-format-context2.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 1786 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20090207/8e500783/attachment.patch>