On Thursday 07 July 2005 19:01, Manu Abraham wrote: > 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 I have one other to add to that - misc shared utilities... I've been doing some exploratory work with dvbsak, and I've put "bitstream" in there since its nice and generic. I've also extracted the dvbcfg_util string parsing stuff and moved it there as well. I'm going to have a go at seeing how feasible dvbsak really is tonight by re-implementing part of the SI code using it.
