On 07.12.2011 14:49, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 03:48:27PM +0100, Andreas Oberritter wrote: >> On 06.12.2011 15:19, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> Your assertatation that applications should ignore the underlying >>> transport (which seems to be a big part of what you're saying) isn't >>> entirely in line with reality. > >> Did you notice that we're talking about a very particular application? > > *sigh* > >> VoIP really is totally off-topic. The B in DVB stands for broadcast. >> There's only one direction in which MPEG payload is to be sent (using >> RTP for example). You can't just re-encode the data on the fly without >> loss of information. > > This is pretty much exactly the case for VoIP some of the time (though > obviously bidirectional use cases are rather common there's things like > conferencing). I would really expect similar considerations to apply > for video content as they certainly do in videoconferencing VoIP > applications - if the application knows about the network it can tailor > what it's doing to that network. > > For example, if it is using a network with a guaranteed bandwidth it can > assume that bandwidth. If it knows something about the structure of the > network it may be able to arrange to work around choke points. > Depending on the situation even something lossy may be the answer - if > it's the difference between working at all and not working then the cost > may be worth it. Once and for all: We have *not* discussed a generic video streaming application. It's only, I repeat, only about accessing a remote DVB API tuner *as if it was local*. No data received from a satellite, cable or terrestrial DVB network shall be modified by this application! Virtually *every* user of it will use it in a LAN. It can't be so hard to understand. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
