On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 07:46, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > Indeed. You should look at it as a level of sophistication of the > driver. A sophisticated driver should likely have a userspace lib for > dealing with it, otherwise everyone is going to be writing the same > code over and over. (no flame intended) I'm thinking exactly the other way around - a good driver doesn't need a toplevel library to function well. Since every grabber is different, they could never use the same lib, unless the lib is just a "give a function to the ioctl-call" toplevel-library, which doesn't add anything and just gives overhead. The app can just as well call the ioctl directly. I don't lika alsa for exactly this reason. A driver that needs a userspace lib to function well is broken by design and implementation, imho. They even recommend us to use the lib because some fixes for mistakes on the driverside are in the lib side. Come on! Colorspace conversions on themselves are of course something to get librarified, but there's millions of such projects walking around already, and nobody uses each other's code. So why would 'libv4lcolorspace', to give it a name coming closer to its function, be different? Just because we make it the official 'v4l library'? That's just abuse of position imho. (yes I'm pessimistic about these kind of things, sorry) Ronald -- - .-. - /V\ | Ronald Bultje <rbultje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - // \\ | Running: Linux 2.4.18-XFS and OpenBSD 3.0 - /( )\ | http://ronald.bitfreak.net/ - ^^-^^
