Andrew de Quincey wrote: > On Thursday 07 July 2005 18:09, Manu Abraham wrote: > >>Andrew de Quincey wrote: >> >>>Well here is my opinion: >>> >>>Should we have "one library to rule them all", or split it into seperate >>>sublibraries? Having seperate libraries is cleaner architecturally, but >>>might be overkill... anyone have any really good arguments either way? >> >>Having sublibraries will keep confusion to an utmost maximum, > > > I assume you mean minimum here :) Sure no doubt .. I am not saying we need to have a lib for everything, but we are at a position where we do not know exactly, what DVB hardware might look like at all.. :-) So we should have some sort of a generic base on which future expansions could be done, rather than pulling it apart everytime something has to be done. Even if it would have to be done, in a split way, the effort required there would be minimal. A possible way i considered was, 1) a parser 2) conditional access (Common Interface or UnCommon Interface) ;-) 3) configs 4) api specific > > >>and will >>be helpful in extending the same at a later stage in any aspect, if >>required. IMHO this would be advantageous.. >> >>For example the main issue that i had initially to go with ca_zap from >>scratch was based upon the same idea. Tomorrow is somebody needs to do >>xyz, it should provide expandability for the same, rather than a tightly >>integrated infrastructure. > > > Yeah, makes sense to me. > :-) Phew, I had been trying to convey this for a long time .. Thanks, Manu
