Andrew de Quincey wrote: > 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. > On second thoughts, well if it would simplify the configs stuff, well why not ? depends how you would like to look at it .. Manu
