<blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">From: Tim-Philipp Müller <<a href="mailto:t.i.m@zen.co.uk">t.i.m@zen.co.uk</a>> To: <a href="mailto:gstreamer-devel@lists.freedesktop.org">gstreamer-devel@lists.freedesktop.org</a> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:22:19 +0100 Subject: Re: which docs is valid? On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 20:12 +0200, Farkas Levente wrote: > ok so which one should have to used by appsink users? You can use whichever you prefer (if you're using C, anyway). The direct callbacks have less overhead of course. -Tim</blockquote><div> How much less overhead? I'm using the "signal" method as shown in the appsink-src.c example from the 10.28 Ubuntu source and everything works perfectly on a quad core, but can't quite keep up on a dual core. It falls behind slowly enough that our longest recording are still OK, but it messes up my attempt at putting a text overlay on each frame -- eventually the latter overlays appear on earlier frames. I'd been going through the docs when I saw this, I'm having a bit of trouble setting up the GstAppSinkCallbacks structure. Do I put NULL for the callbacks I don't want? (which is all but "new-buffer") </div>