[PD-dev] [GEM-dev] thinking about [pix_dv]

IOhannes zmoelnig zmoelnig at iem.kug.ac.at
Mon Apr 14 10:21:29 CEST 2003

hi gem-devs.

i wanted to say this for quite some time, but i have always forgotten.
how should the naming-scheme for digital-video-IN-objects be ?
personally i see 2 options
a) [pix_video] (just with the use of newer capture-API)
b) [pix_dv]

pro a)
	it is a good description of what is done.
	it is compatible with old-patches and just allows to use newer devices 
(like ieee1394)

contra a)
	under linux ieee1394 and normal capture-devices a fundamentally different 
(to start with: just different devices). to pack this into a stable API 
that allows access to both analog and digital video-sources might be hard.

pro b)
	it solves the linux problem because we only have to access one type of 
devices in each object.
	it gives access to old and new drivers under windows (are there devices 
that are not supported by directshow ?)

contra b)
	one more object
	video devices are video devices are video devices

being on linux, i naturally favour the [pix_dv] solution
(i would even have proposed [pix_ieee1394] because i think that "DV" is 
somehow copyrighted, but this would be totally confusing for, say, the 

under macOS [pix_dv] would just be an alias for [pix_video] ?

i really think, that we should stay OS-transparent in terms of 
object-names (unlike [pix_videoDS] and [pix_videoDarwin] ;-))

so what do you think.


ps: the problem only arises because of the nature of linux-drivers (as 
opposed to macOS and win). but that's the price for cross-platform.

More information about the Pd-dev mailing list