Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:> After years of discussions, several patch series and two different proposed> approaches, LinuxTV developers finally decided that S2API is the better> technical proposal and should be accepted as the way to allow supporting newer> DTV standards, starting with DVB-S2. [..] > The main arguments in favor of S2API over Multiproto are:> > - Future proof – the proposal for S2API is more flexible, easily> allowing the addition of newer features and new standard support;\ Can you please show how this differentiates the multiproto tree and theS2API tree ? > - Simplicity – S2API patches are very simple, while Multiproto> presented a very complex series of changes. Simpler approaches> reduces the time for maintaining the source code; Simplicity of an API is not simplicity of a patch, but simplicity of aninterface provided by the same. The multiproto tree provides aninterface relevant to the respective delivery system and thus is is themost simplest way to handle a delivery system, for anyone knowing adelivery system can simply work on it. It is as simple as that ! Your concept of simplicity might be good for a device driver, or anapplication, but that's not what is meant by simplicity for an API. > - Capability of allowing improvements even on the existing standards,> like allowing diversity control that starts to appear on newer DVB> devices. As has been discussed much before, the multiproto tree is capable ofhandling newer features. Well, diversity is such a small point to eventalk about, but whereas even much more complex features of DVB-S2 can beincorporated into the multiproto tree with much ease. All these features are supported by the Multiproto tree, with regards to simplicity the multiproto tree is much simpler than any other. Manu _______________________________________________linux-dvb mailing listlinux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
