[FFmpeg-devel] Notes about avdevice

[Reimar Döffinger]

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:41:28AM -0500, Don Moir wrote:
> >On 25 Nov 2012, at 14:12, "Don Moir" <donmoir at comcast.net> wrote:
> >>I am not here to piss anyone off. I already have it implemented
> >>and if you want that code I will give it. I don't have the time
> >>to go thru all the details of putting it into ffmpeg.
> >
> >It would help to know what the "it" you have implemented is exactly. Or just send what you have.
> >Code to list the devices exist already after all, just not a convenient way to use the result programmatically.
> 
> 'It' would be the thing we are talking about and that is getting the
> devices and their resolutions in a reasonalble way. The reason I
> said it would be easy is because you do already list the devices.
> For dshow it's a small step to get the resolutions and I will post
> that code. For other than dshow I don't know.

Good, being able to list resolutions would be desirable any way,
regardless of the API discussion.
My main concern is that we end up with 5 functions for each input
device that all almost do the same thing just not quite and eliminate
any hope to write code that works both with e.g. v4l2 and dshow input
device (I suspect that differences in option names already might cause
that).

> >That was exactly what I was complaining about, did you have to add the "listen to reason" part?
> 
> No I did not have to add the 'listen to reason part'. Like all of you I get tense at times and not immune.

Sure, it's still not really helpful and makes it more likely that people
miss your real points.

> >I have offered a quick fix (parsing av_log, which I don't think is quite as bad as you claim, but clearly ugly)
> 
> I already have a better fix then the looking at av_log and thats just not a reasonable thing to do.

I know now that you have a nicer solution, but when I originally suggested it
I didn't know that. I'd still only place it at "mildly unreasonable"
at most, but that is kind of a moot discussion.

> >and a high-effort one that also needs more design work but that we
> >should be able to re-use for almost anything. That doesn't
> >preclude other solutions though.
> 
> Yes I agree.
> 
> The funny thing is when I see a programmer use IMHO... Not sure when
> I have ever met a humble programmer and if you are a humble
> programmer then that would concern me :)

The "IMHO" is usually more a way to reduce the chance of causing a flame
war and/or an indication of being open to other suggestions I think.
Also one could discuss whether "humble" is meant to apply to the person
or maybe really only to the opinion :-) .