[Bug 689191] d3dvideosink improvements

[GStreamer (bugzilla.gnome.org)]

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=689191
  GStreamer | gst-plugins-bad | 0.10.x

Sebastian Dröge <slomo> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |UNCONFIRMED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |

--- Comment #13 from Sebastian Dröge <slomo at circular-chaos.org> 2013-01-10 10:01:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Sebastian: it can fail a state change to READY if Direct3D is explicitly
> referenced but not installed on the system. IOW, it would fail at library load
> time. The previous code effectively used LoadLibrary() (well, the glib
> equivalents) to detect Direct3D's existence and the correct version at that
> before attempting to use it. There was logic in place that could be used in the
> future to select a better version of Direct3D if available and then fail back
> to v9 if none were found.
> 
> Windows XP embedded (for example) allows you to pick and choose which
> components of the Windows runtime you want on the system, so it's entirely
> feasible that Direct3D may not exist where others might (e.g. DirectDraw).

Yeah, but then playbin will automatically switch to directdrawsink. It doesn't
matter much if the failure happens at plugin load time or during the state
change to READY. It only makes everything more complex IMHO :)

> It's feasible that Direct3D 9 will be dropped in the future (as in shipped
> OOTB) and it's also possible that video card manufacturers in the future could
> drop support for Direct3D 9. Admittedly, in the foreseeable future it's
> unlikely at best.

Direct3D 9 is a requirement for Metro compatible devices at this point. As such
I don't see it getting dropped in the next years at all, especially considering
that Microsoft is annoyingly concerned with backwards compatibility.

> Sebastian -- this should have been reviewed more in-depth prior to being
> committed. Some parts are absolutely fine, others not (e.g. the topic of this
> discussion). Shouldn't this have been split into multiple patches?

Yes, it should've been split up into multiple patches, see discussion at the
very top here. I tried to review it as good as possible though and apparently
missed some pieces, sorry for that.


So, let's reopen this bug and make sure it gets fixed before the 1.2 release.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.