[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] RTSP muxer, round 3

Ronald S. Bultje rsbultje
Wed Feb 17 19:45:38 CET 2010


On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Martin Storsj? <martin at martin.st> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> For 2, 3 an following. Do we really need RECORDING? My impression is
>> that PLAYING implies is_output == 0 and RECORDING is the same, with
>> is_output == 1. In other words, we have duplicate info here. I
>> understand that we need is_output because we could be PAUSED, or
>> STOPPED. But RECORDING vs. PLAYING (although terminalogically ok)
>> seems to stem from miswording. I'd prefer a patch renaming PLAYING to
>> something else, or better, add a define that makes RECORDING a
>> duplicate of PLAYING if you really want to.
> Sounds very reasonable. Any suggestion on a name for the combined
> playing/recording state? Streaming, running? Otherwise, a define is ok,
> too, but that's a bit messier.

STREAMING is fine with me. Luca B, can you live with that?

>> 10) - I'd prefer a separate file for now.
> Sure - I've got ideas on how to split this file into rtsp.c, rtspdec.c,
> rtspenc.c relatively cleanly. It's easier to do the split once the muxer
> code is in place, though, so is it ok for you to first apply this, then do
> the split?

Well, so you can already start putting muxer-specific code in
rtspenc.c without rtspdec.c being there. Or at least, that's my logic.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list