Video jack @ piksel

Dave Robillard:
> On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 21:14 +0200, Kjetil S. Matheussen
wrote:
>> Dave Robillard:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 2006-10-21 at 18:05 +0200, salsaman
wrote:
>>>> Well, I have made my views known: IMO it is
better to run 2 jack
>>>> servers, one for video, one for audio.
>>>
>>> I don't understand how you can seriously
request inclusion of these
>>> 'videojack' changes into Jack right now, when
EXTREMELY fundamental
>>> design decisions like this havn't even been
figured out.
>>>
>>
>> I don't agree.. "salsaman" has been very
clear explaining why there should
>> be two servers. I don't know what kind of
"extremely fundamental design
>> decisions" you are thinking about that hasn't
been figured out...
>
> Sorry, but the latest of these explanations was a..
"solution" about
> changing the audio buffer size to the video buffer size
or something
> which doesn't even make sense ('very clear' !?)
>

I think it was very clear. A bit fatalistic solution
perhaps, but at least
its a very clean one. Mixing audio and video in the same
server might 
very well be impossible to do properly without making code
and/or API more 
complicated than using two servers.


> It sounds like (unless salsaman is just confused) the
videojack
> developers have just plowed through Jack breaking
everything in their
> path to make it work for video INSTEAD of audio.  I
hope this isn't the
> case, but if I was a bettin' man...
>

Please be less hostile. Extending jack to handle video is
not necessarily 
a bad thing. I don't see anything wrong by using the jack
framework to 
do that either. It could lead to finding more bugs and make
the code more 
modular.


> Anyway, this conversation is far too ambigious and
confusing to not be a
> dead end.  Show us the code!
>

I'm pretty sure links to code has been posted...




------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web
services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to
make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on
Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/
sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Jackit-devel mailing list
Jackit-devellists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jackit-dev
el

On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 00:46 +0200, Kjetil S. Matheussen
wrote:

> Please be less hostile. Extending jack to handle video
is not necessarily 
> a bad thing. I don't see anything wrong by using the
jack framework to 
> do that either. It could lead to finding more bugs and
make the code more 
> modular.

i agree that less hostility is good. but videojack doesn't
really
represent "extending" JACK to handle video as well
as audio. as much as
it does "changing" JACK to work with video instead
of audio. not a
useless goal, but not as useful as a true extension would
be.

as for "more modular", i believe, no matter what
JOQ may think, that
jackdmp is the answer to that particular problem, but we
will get to
that .... someday.

--p




------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web
services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to
make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on
Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/
sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Jackit-devel mailing list
Jackit-devellists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jackit-dev
el