Comparison: MAS, GStreamer, NMM

[Marco Lohse]

Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:

[..]

>  
>
>>>Also, I don't think it's smart to do this for audio only.  We all know
>>>audio is the easiest to get right anyway, and audio presents a lot less
>>>challenge to frameworks.
>>> 
>>>      
>>>
>>yes, there might be other examples. However, the idea was to compare the 
>>basic programming model and API of the frameworks.
>>    
>>
>
>Agreed.  The point is, you can't do a valid comparison between
>*multimedia* frameworks if you don't throw *multi*media at the tests. 
>What good is a framework that is really nice for audio-only stuff, but
>falls apart for video ? What good is an API that's really nice for audio
>stuff, but can't handle video ?
>  
>
sure we can add multi-media, e.g. audio, video, ..., (how about SMIL? 
 No, just kidding ;)
However, as stated in my first email: The audio player is meant as 
starting point, and: these features are
simple enough to be provided for all three frameworks.

[..]

>  
>
>>Again: together, the idea was to compare the basic programming model and 
>>API of the frameworks. We think that the provided examples are very 
>>suitable for that.
>>    
>>
>
>I respectfully disagree, they are not broad enough to give a good idea
>of what code would need to be written for a playback application.  Let's
>iterate the playing field some more before starting :)
>  
>
... but they are simple enough as a starting point.

And: if a framework is generic, then setting one capability (e.g. 
setting the filename of the source plug-in) is handled as setting any 
other capability. Also, registering a listener (or callback) for one 
event is handled generically. So these examples already handle a lot of 
stuff.

Have fun, Marco.