Multimedia framework

Tim Jansen ml at
Thu Oct 24 20:50:43 BST 2002

On Thursday 24 October 2002 21:23, Jason Wood wrote:
> However, I have to ask the question at this point: if GStreamer is already
> on the right track to a multimedia architecture that can provide everything
> that everyone wants (I still haven't looked into GStreamer & aRts enough to
> see if this is the case), then why bother putting in all of the manhours to
> add video support properly to aRts, when we can essentially just patch aRts
> up with a short term video solution and consider GStreamer as the long-term
> solution for KDE?

It's up to individuals to decide which solution they want to support. If 
somebody wants to invest his time in a solution, he should do so. If the 
result is better, it should be chosen. 
Actually nobody said that there can only be one solutions - there could be 
several solutions with different strengths, as long as enough people are 
available to maintain them.

> At the end of the day, if I have the choice to spend the next year writing
> a video framework into aRts, or wait 9 months for GStreamer to mature and
> then spend three weeks updating the C++ wrappers around it, then I for one
> would prefer the time to work on other things :-)

This is my current strategy :)
But I wouldn't mind if somebody comes up with a comparable solution based on 
Arts, or a completely different new one. Only the functionality matters for 
me. I am willing to maintain the Gst bindings, but I am not keen on it. 


More information about the kde-multimedia mailing list