[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Add WebM to the Matroska demuxer name

[Alex Converse]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Reimar D?ffinger
<Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 04:57:40PM -0400, Alex Converse wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Reimar D?ffinger
>> <Reimar.Doeffinger at gmx.de> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 04:10:29PM -0400, Alex Converse wrote:
>> >> So am I going to wind up burying this patch because we can't agree on
>> >> what the ideal libavformat API should be?
>> >>
>> >> What's making me irritated here is the patch is not being held up
>> >> because it is broken but because people dislike the established
>> >> interfaces.
>> >
>> > It is "broken" in so far as it _will_ break MPlayer, MPlayer
>> > uses the short name to decide whether to accept or reject an
>> > autodetection (since for some formats the lavf demuxers
>> > are not working well enough).
>> > This may not have been the intended use, but it seems likely
>> > to me other applications may have misused it in similar ways,
>> > since I am not aware of any other way to uniquely identify a
>> > _given_ AVInputFormat.
>>
>> Under the current ABI it is a comma separated list that is allowed to
>> grow (though It grows quite infrequently). It seems like doing it the
>> right way is possible under the current ABI (all you would have to do
>> is compare the first name up until the first comma or NUL). Perhaps
>> you can enlighten us on why mplayer feels it necessary to do it the
>> way it does.
>
> Probably for the same reason that av_guess_format does that?
> "Nobody" knows that the name isn't actually a name, but a comma-separated
> list of names and you'd have to parse them, which is not _quite_ as
> simple as your description sounds.
> Particularly since so far there is nothing that would allow me to assume
> that the order stays the same, is there?
>

One of the demuxers in your list uses a comma separated list and its
list has grown in recent memory.

>> Furthermore if you have a problem with a libavformat demuxer why not
>> fix it rather than maintain your own set of demuxers only for mplayer
>> that other players can't share.
>
> Because my time is not unlimited? Sorry, but that question is about as stupid
> as asking "why don't you just fix all FFmpeg bugs?".
> Or did you fail to notice that I _have_ been fixing quite a few issues
> in order to get there?

Good for you, I don't understand why FFmpeg is being asked to bend
over backwards for MPlayer's hacks.

> Not to mention the issues I can't do anything about, like the lavf mpegts
> demuxer patch to support LATM being refused because it breaks things with
> libavcodec?

Why can't you do anything about?