Good Morning, >From what I recall of discussions held on this list the reasons are based on, in no particular order :), First - initial basic common sense then an iterative process involving - satisfaction of common corner use cases - satisfaction of problem use cases - keeping most people happy most of the time - keeping some people happy some of the time i.e. a can of worms. I am sure others can provide a more insightful technical response. Ian. On 24 Aug 2010, at 06:57, Rainer Blickle wrote: > Hi, > > in the method cDevice::GetDevice the device with the least impact is > searched (the block with "imp <<= x; imp |= "). For calculating the > impact (higher value = bigger impact) some "facts" are used. The most > prio fact is "prefer the primary device for live viewing", the least > prio is "prefer CAMs that are known to decrypt this channel". > > Does anyone know why the facts are ordered in this way ? > > Why ?: > > At the moment i'm developing a patch providing alternative channels. > An alternative channel is a channel providing the same programme as > the original channel, but with another receiving technique (like DVB-T > instead of DVB-C). My alternative technique is analoge (via pvrinput). > For this, i introduced a new fact "programme is received from an > alternative channel". Therefor i have to define the priority of this > new fact regarding the impact. So i'd like to know more why the prio > is as it is. > > Regards, Rainer > > _______________________________________________ > vdr mailing list > vdr@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr _______________________________________________ vdr mailing list vdr@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
