Manu Abraham <manu@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> It depends on where the development is going. IMHO ca_zap should >> stay a small tool similar to szap, so if it works now with libsi, >> why would you want to change that? > > The question that was raised by Dominique was that he would like to > to replace (libsi) the factored out code from ca_zap, with mpsys.. As Johanness stated, it depends on where you want to push libsi (eventually): - either a full SI parser. In this case, it would be a shame not to consider mpsys or the code generation approach that was developed there. - Just a PAT/PMT parser and CA_SET_PMT encoder. In this case, manual coding is fine. But the libsi name may be misleading. I guess that the question will arise againg when you'll want to implement the MMI handling as they many protocol objects to encode or decode. >> OTOH if you (or someone else) wants to write a larger dvb library, >> then why reimplement all of SI parsing if there are exisiting libs >> for it? Furthermore, for other protocol, why use manual coding when mpsys author developed a techno that enable you to generate the decoder routines ? Cheers
