Hi Anders,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anders Broman
> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 4:12 AM
> To: Developer support list for Wireshark
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] RTP player - a suggestion
>
>>> My proposal:
>>> Add 'mixer' layer which will provide the following features to improve
>>> usability:
>>
>> I started work on "proof of concept" for very similar idea. I
>> didn't finished it yet. But I have a few points which I would like
>> to mention and discuss it there:
>
>>1) There are at least four points where is RTP processed to audio -
>>once for "audio player" and once for "audio save". GTK and Qt UI
>>branch has own code for it => four places.
>>
>>I analysed it and found that even Qt code is derived from GTK, it is
>>slightly different. On the other hand, the main difference is
>>between code in audio player and audio save in each branch.
>>
>>Therefore my idea is to extract RTP audio processing code to some
>>kind of library.
>>
>>I made part of work on it and found that there is one big issue -
>>GTK code "idea" is very different to Qt code. Up to now I found no
>>way how to prepare API for such library which can be used from GTK
>>and Qt code in parallel.
>>
>>The question is whether it makes sense to update GTK code when there
>>is long term idea to leave it? If so, there is much more work than
>>just for Qt.
>
>I would vote for not updating the GTK for the reasons you
>mention. Worst case I'd say remove the GTK RTP player.
I disagree. Right now, the GTK RTP player is the only one that I
consider usable. By comparison, the Qt RTP player only barely works,
and is unusable if you're dealing with more than one stream. If these
changes can improve the Qt version to be about as good as the GTK
version was/is, then perhaps breaking the GTK version is okay. But
don't break/remove the GTK version *and* leave the Qt version less
than fully functional.
--
Peter Budny