7 May
2008
7 May
'08
6:05 p.m.
Le 7 mai 08 à 21:37, Juuso Alasuutari a écrit :
Stéphane Letz wrote:
Yes sure.
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
jackdmp/jack2 branch.
Stephane
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?
Juuso