[vlc-devel] [RFC] Nth playlist rewrite

Pierre d'Herbemont pdherbemont at free.fr
Sun Mar 16 19:32:58 CET 2008

Selon Rafaël Carré <funman at videolan.org>:

> > That is a nice way to make sure that there is no circular dependency
> between
> > playlist and input, given that from a conceptual point of view, the
> playlist
> > should be kept away from the input. The playlist should manipulates input,
> and
> > not the other way around.
> This is exactly the "other way around" which happens with "sub items".

No, this is done through callbacks/events. The playlist is an input client. So
we break the circular dependency. (That's why we can deal with two differents
playlist subsystems at the moment).

> > > > Moreover, the input_item_subitem_added() is only an event handler for
> the
> > > > input_AddSubItem call. It can't work well with current playlist (hence
> the
> > > nasty
> > > > hack) but do work well with libvlc-control. So how do you plan to
> remove
> > > that
> > > > input_AddSubItem abstraction?
> > >
> > > By statically linking each input_item and playlist_item, i.e. associating
> > > them for life.
> >
> > Don't you feel that playlist_item should have an input_item and not the
> other
> > way around?
> Why would an input move from one playlist_item to another ?
> An input should have its own playlist_item forever.

Well, a playlist_item holds a input_item. Not the other way around. Because here
the playlist_item is an input_item subclass. (A playlist item is a specialized
input_item, right?). You now just have to manipulates playlist_item.

This will allow you to make sure you separate the playlist from the rest.

Of course we can just keep an array with the playlist_item<->input_item
association to do the actual subclassing. This may ease the work. But really
sounds ugly.

> > I am really trying to understand what you want to do. The only way that I
> could
> > agree with you would be:
> > - Have each input_item to have a list of its subitems.
> > - Not to put any more playlist stuff in the input.
> Does that mean having both a hierarchy in the playlist, and one in the
> input ? Freaky.

Not necessarily. It does mean that you put all the playlist browsing in the
input_item. You don't have to duplicate.

Indeed, doing that means exactly the same as having a playlist_item for each

Because the idea we are facing is that, an input_item is a playlist_item, in the
sense that it can have children.

> Well, we could remove the hierarchy from the playlist Model (internal
> structure) and only use input hierarchy.

So an idea would be:
-> subitems() returns a struct holding the subitems. A media_list for instance.

I am more or less fine with it, as long as the media_list struct is light, and
clearly separated.

> That means:
> 	1/ Keep a hierarchy only for the top playlist, i.e.
> 			- local
> 			- media library
> 			- services discovery 1
> 			- services discovery 2

To me the PLAYLIST top node should be interface dependant. And the name PLAYLIST
is not really close to the reality. This is not a playlist but an array of
services that provides media. Media Providers.

> And each of these nodes would have inputs:
> directory/
> 	|-file 1 (linked to directory's input)
> 	\-file 2 (linked to directory's input)
> audio-cd
> 	|-track1
> 	\-track2
> stream1
> stream2
> youtube_http_url
> 	\-flv
> In this theory we have 5 playlist_item:
> directory, audio-cd, stream1, stream2, youtube_http_url

I am lost. Why aren't those also plain input_items (each playlist_item should
contains, at least, an empty input_item, if there is a subclass link between the

> and 10 input_item, 5 of them are not associated to the playlist in any
> way.

ok, I just realized. Let's dump the word playlist again. It's way too vague.

Each input_item has a media_list or whatever containing its subitems.

> BUT that means that for the GUI to manage the playlist View, it has to
> mess with input code.

The GUI asks for a media_list's media_list_view and you can iterate through it.
You get input_item in the end. Because that's our lighter unit. You can then
query its meta an so on. That seems sound to me.

> So I don't see how we can remove the circular dependancy here.

Well, currently the circular dependency is gone. Given that we are using
callback, and that the playlist is an input_item client.

But as long as we use a light object that describe the relation there is no

> I don't know OO vocabulary.
> Do you mean :
> struct
> {
> 	input_item_t 	*p_item;
> 	int		i_subitems;
> 	input_item_t	**pp_subitems;
> } media_descriptor;

I meant:
media_descriptor contains
   media_list_t * subitems()
and has probably a private input_item.

> The next step is to propose a design (a drawing/picture) of what
> playlist should do, how it communicates with other parts of the code, to
> clear out any misunderstanding.

Basically libvlc API work that way:

- subitems() [returns a media_list] [Note, We don't really need that and it
creates a circular very light circular dependancy, but it is was convenient back
in the time when there was no media_list_view]

- get_flat_view() [returns a media_list_view]
- get_hierarchical_view() [returns a media_list_view]

- add/insert_item( media_descriptor )

[getters, do we really need them?]
- item_at_index() [returns a media_descriptor]

- item_at_index()
- children_at_index()

- set_media_list()
- play()
- pause()
- etc...

I really think that this way we really separate the essential part of the


----- Fin du message transféré -----

More information about the vlc-devel mailing list