[matroska-devel] Re: [UCI-Devel] Re: How UCI and Matroska could interact

Pamel paul at msn.com
Thu Jan 23 18:32:06 CET 2003


"Kondoros Attila" <cookieman_k at yahoo.com>
> That was my impression too, that the countainers
> should not be linked directly to the UCILIB (UCI is an
> interface to codecs and on the other part interface to
> the Application.)

I couldn't agree more.  Linking directly to a container via the individual
interfaces, and using seperate commands for each lib, would defeat the
purpose of having a universal interface.

> Also in the UCI I do not see any thing that can be
> used directly by the containers, but I maybe
> mistaking... :(

I'll say mistaken, because it is needed.

> What UCI contains right now:
> 1. An interface to the "Applications"
> 2. An interface to the "Codecs"
> 3. -) missing (-: An interface to the "Containers" :(

Yes, we need a common interface to containers for this to work and be
useful.

> Maybe a standard interface could be added to UCI that
> would unify the containers too...

Bingo.

> If every container would have it's own interface
> exposed than the application must be modified every
> time a new container becomes used by the users.

Thats the problem we have right now.  Just look at the mess that
VirtualDubMod is becoming trying to add support for each container
individualy.  If there were a universal interface that handled the app,
codec, and container API's, then VirtualDubMod could be made to work almost
instantly with any container that had a UCI-compliant library.

> All in all, then matroska would have to adhere to the
> (non existent) UCI container interface.

Matroska has to have a DS/vfw interface right now.  But once a universal
interface exists, this should be quickly added to it.

> Am I talking stupid things here? What others think
> about this?

You are right on track.  Brilliant ideas man.


Pamel



http://matroska.org



More information about the Matroska-devel mailing list