[LAD] [Jack-Devel] Re : The future of videojack ?
letz at grame.fr
Wed May 7 20:04:58 UTC 2008
Le 7 mai 08 à 21:37, Juuso Alasuutari a écrit :
> Stéphane Letz wrote:
>> Video in jack1 won't happen because of several reasons that can be
>> explained again: we want to fix and release jack1 soon and video
>> in jack is a too big change to be integrated in the current state
>> of the proposed patch.
>> The future of jack is now jack2, based on the jackdmp new
>> implementation (http://www.grame.fr/~letz/jackdmp.html). A lot of
>> work has already been done in this code base that is now API
>> equivalent to jack2. New features are already worked on like the
>> DBUS based control (developed in the "control" branch) and NetJack
>> rework (developed in the "network" branch).
>> I think a combined "video + audio in a unique server" approach is
>> perfectly possible: this would require having 2 separated graph
>> for audio and video running at their own rate. Video and audio
>> would be done in different callbacks and thus handled in different
>> threads (probably running at 2 different priorities so that audio
>> can "interrupt" video). Obviously doing that the right way would
>> require a bit of work, but is probably much easier to design and
>> implement in jackd2 codebase.
>> Thus I think a better overall approach to avoid "video jack fork"
>> is to work in this direction, possibly by implementing video jack
>> with the "separated server" idea first (since is is easier to
>> implement). This could be started right away in a jack2 branch.
> I'll throw in my 2 Euro cents.
> If the VideoJACK crowd feels that JACK2 development is taking too
> slow and decide to continue with their fork, may I suggest that we
> all still discuss and draft a proper video API together? If a fork
> happens out of practical reasons, it would be best to make sure
> that switching video software to use JACK2 later on will be as
> painless as possible.
> Technical issues aside, I wish that those affiliated with VideoJACK
> do not feel that their needs are neglected by the JACK developers.
> I hope that the recent discussion has proved that people in this
> camp are willing to improve JACK in this respect. Perhaps we could
> move on and try to find more common ground?
Where is the latest state of the video patch for jack? I can have a
look and see how easy/difficult it would be to implement that in a
More information about the Linux-audio-dev