Mailing List archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[vdr] Re: VDR developer version 1.1.6
Stefan Huelswitt wrote:
> On 04 Aug 2002 Andreas Schultz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I believe that a generic solution that does not involve exposing device fd's
> > to player classes would be best to solve 2 and 3.
> There is another problem with an abstract device implementation:
> the playback setup of a device may be player dependent.
> e.g. PCM replay (MP3) needs to setup the dvb device differently as for
> playback of recordings. And returning to normal mode needs other
> ioctl's too.
> Either the player must have knowledge about the device (and have
> the posibility to access the device ioctl's directly) or the
> device must have callbacks to put the device into various modes
> (may be to unflexible for exotic players).
I'd like to avoid making the player "know" too much about the actual
device. That would counteract the idea of having device plugins.
As already mentioned in my reply to your PM regarding this topic,
please let me know what exactly these additional ioctl() calls
are. Maybe we can make the device interface abstract enough to
handle this, too.
Klaus Schmidinger Phone: +49-8635-6989-10
CadSoft Computer GmbH Fax: +49-8635-6989-40
Hofmark 2 Email: email@example.com
D-84568 Pleiskirchen, Germany URL: www.cadsoft.de
Main Index |