[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH v4 3/7] cmdutils: use new iteration APIs

Josh de Kock josh at itanimul.li
Sun Mar 25 18:35:12 EEST 2018

On 2018/03/25 16:21, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:05:22AM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
>> Josh de Kock (2018-03-22):
>>> move lavd avinputformats and avoutputformats into lavf
>>> delete lavd
>> Possibly ok in principle for me, but see below.
>>> write new lavd aimed at actual devices
>> There are already such libraries, we do not need another. The basic
>> devices with a (de)muxer API are quite right to give many extra features
>> with little extra cost.
>> But why are we discussing this? It seems to me that the discussion went
>> approximately like this:
>> "Darn, the faucet I just bought to fix the leaky one does not fit the
>> pipes. Well, I guess I will have to redo the whole plumbing to make it
>> fit."
>> The correct way of addressing the problem is to buy a new faucet with
>> the correct size. And cut the losses if the first one cannot be
>> refunded. I feel like the discussion is largely fueled by the cognitive
>> bias known as "sunk cost fallacy": due to efforts invested in a
>> solution, become attached emotionally to it and fail to see when it
>> proves to cause more costs than benefits.
>> Can we at least REALLY CONSIDER this:
>> 1. Acknowledge that this issue about lavd, on top of Michael's early
>>     concerns about registering external components, has proven that the
>>     all-static approach, while elegant in many ways, is not practical.
>> 2. Agree to revert the API as it is and discuss a better solution.
> iam in favor of reverting the API, there is apparently discussion going
> on now here to design a different, better API and IMHO its better not to
> introduce a new API now if there is active work going on to change it.

Sure, if someone else reverts, designs, write, integrates, deals with 
the never-ending bikeshedding, fixes issues around lavf/lavd's broken 
shit, why not? But that's not going to happen, let's be real. If anyone 
actually cared enough, then it would be fixed already. It's been broken 
since version 0.5, the only reason people care now is because they're 
scared of change. It may not be the 'best' API, but if everything was 
designed the 'best' then we wouldn't have to deal with stuff like this.

> People would just start to switch to the current API only to have it
> deprecated in the release after that and having to replace it again
> If the new API stays then I will most likely have to submit some ugly
> hack to workaround
> the size explosion issue for static linking with the current API.

What size explosion?

> And that for each lib not just avcodec.
> Thats to allow the ffmpeg ossfuzz code to grow and test more things
> quickly within the available resources.
I honestly would like to be an idealist here, but it's much more 
practical to just be real here. Nothing happens in this project unless 
the conversation begins with a patch (and even then, stuff barely 
happens). So in the words of others on the list:

You forgot to attach your patch.


More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list