[MPlayer-dev-eng] MPlayer GUI

[Reimar Döffinger]

Hi,
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 04:57:55PM +0200, Piotr Stachura wrote:
> Dnia ??roda, 26 kwietnia 2006 13:58, Guillaume Poirier napisa??:
> > I hope this won't restrain you from coding you own GUI: even if it may
> > not become THE official GUI, I'm sure there's a life besides
> > "official" mplayer.
> 
> I don't want to create new project. But I'm start thinking about modify 
> current official GUI. For now I'd like to hear what are you excepting from 

If you want to just modify the current Gui I think
1) You're stuck with C anyway, if you try to push some pseudo-C++ into
the current one, I can't imagine it will do much more than explode *g*
2) There is a lot of cruft that you will probably have to clean up
before getting a chance to enhance it in a productive way.

> 2.Possibility to run in slave mode (ie. for play WMV3 on amd64 using 32-bin 
> binary version)

slave mode should be prefered anyway - there almost certainly need to be
improvements to the slave mode stuff to make things work nicely, but I
hope that will work out.

> 3.Made usable to play only music files (nice playlist and other useless stuff)

A lot of people dislike a combined video/music player, since they often
have very different requirements. Well, maybe you can create a Gui that
handle both well, but I'd be careful.

> 4.MEncoder integration (in the future :P)

This is something I think does not fit well into a player Gui at all.
Though I admit here too not that many people have tried.

> BTW. I think that everyone thinks that current GUI sucks but nobody want to do 
> something about it.

Actually, for most people on the list I would say they care too little
about it to even have an opinion, or at most something along the lines
of "useless crappy code".

> and about ???week-long flamewar??? - if it will be creative 
> then why not :D

Hm. I experience the flamewars here more like: A says something, B says
the opposite, A repeats previous statement + additional flame, B does
the same etc., and in the end the thread dies because all mail belonging
to it are deleted in less the time than needed to read the subject...

Greetings,
Reimar Döffinger