:: Re: [Frei0r] api documentation
Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: salsaman
Date:  
To: Minimalistic plugin API for video effects
Subject: Re: [Frei0r] api documentation
This is a HUGE change to the internal API of plugins, and yet there is not
one message even mentioning this, let alone discussing this on the mailing
list.

So much for "community project" if one person can decide to just check in
an update with no discussion, code review even the courtesy to inform the
other developers.


Salsaman.






http://lives-video.com
https://www.openhub.net/accounts/salsaman

On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 9:38 PM, salsaman <salsaman@???> wrote:

> Wait, what is this check in 455c441a5d978109e00c5d05b9f0ec73617c51c3 ?
> It seems to be changing the update functions for some filters to make them
> into mixer3, but without moving them to the correct subdirectory.
>
> Also, the type for the update function is wrong, it should be:
>
>
> f0r_update
> <https://frei0r.dyne.org/codedoc/html/frei0r_8h.html#a7ddea8bcbfd15affc084f669c0140857>
> (f0r_instance_t
> <https://frei0r.dyne.org/codedoc/html/frei0r_8h.html#aaf4b514489e1a1399f23919d467fa7f2>
> instance, double time, const uint32_t *inframe, uint32_t *outframe)
>
> but these plugins are doing:
>
> update(double time,
>                       uint32_t* out,
>                       const uint32_t* in,
>                       const uint32_t* in2,
>                       const uint32_t* in3);

>
>
> !!!!
>
>
> WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON ?
>
>
> Salsaman.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://lives-video.com
> https://www.openhub.net/accounts/salsaman
>
> On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 9:24 PM, salsaman <salsaman@???> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Jaromil <jaromil@???> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> re all
>>>
>>> to synchronize the documentation of frei0r to the current stage of
>>> development, I'm wondering if these changes need an update:
>>> http://frei0r.dyne.org/codedoc/html/
>>>
>>> in particular with reference to commit "Fix frame-parallelism in C++
>>> plugins"
>>> 455c441a5d978109e00c5d05b9f0ec73617c51c3
>>>
>>> shouldn't we update the specification according to the change of
>>> update()?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Sorry, what is this referring to ? I don't recall any discussion related
>> to spec. changes.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Salsaman.
>>
>>
>>
>