[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnash-dev] Re: About AMF (Techical)

From: Jason Woofenden
Subject: Re: [Gnash-dev] Re: About AMF (Techical)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 17:29:28 -0400

>> I'm sure the Element model fits your RTMP work more, so I'm not
>> suggesting to drop it as a whole (unless proven conceptually bogus). I
>> just tried to seed the discussion a bit with the REFERENCE and GC
>> issues which *may* invalidate the model. It's up to you whether to
>> consider that or ignore it.
>  I'm not ignoring references,

rob: I think strk meant that you ignored references in your reply to his e-mail.

>I'm just not adding support for that *right
> now*. My current priority is to finish rtmpget, before launching off on
> other things like supporting references. Just saying you can invalidate why
> I use Element doesn't mean I should drop everything I'm working on as a top
> priority. I have ideas on how to support reference types, but I'll be
> happier when I can download videos from the BBC using RTMP. :-)
>  While you say I'm ignoring your technical issue, I see you totally ignoring
> the bigger picture of what RTMP needs to work, and not being very open
> minded about those issues. Somewhere in the middle is probably a perfect
> solution. :-)

We're not asking you to change what you're coding. We're asking you to
talk about it. What is your plan/idea for supporting references?
Please share your ideas. It may effect our choice of whether to use
your code or not. Also, there's a lot of bright minds on this list, we
may have further ideas for you.

Best,  - Jason

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]