[vlc-devel] [vlc-commits] commit: Qt: save volume on exit ( Francois Cartegnie )

[Francois Cartegnie]

Le jeudi 29 juillet 2010, vous avez écrit :
> There is a reason why the preferences dialog has separate OK and Save
>  buttons. Your stupid change made the configuration ALWAYS saved at exit.
>  This is wrong and unacceptable. This is not going to change just for the
>  sake of the audio volume.

Yep, that was out of my scope and stupid but that was config_save related and 
not the last commit.

> I don't see the point. (lib)VLC already has its default volume. Why the
>  heck does the Qt4 interface needs to have its own default volume? What
>  happens when we have two interfaces with their own (conflicting) default
>  volumes then?

1 - User sets the "Qt start value" to val1
2 - User wants to change the way it's done and now wants to "save volume on 
exit": saves live value val2
3 - User goes back to Qt and now have val2 as "Qt start value"
Pressing OK or Save at step #2 would have changed nothing.

Qt has two max values: 256 and 512. The core goes as far as 1024.

> Don't you see a self-contradiction here?
Test case above.

Confusion starts with the "Qt start value" linked to the 'live' audio volume. 
Then came your explanation: "Unfortumately, this is currently not possible 
because the running volume is stored in the configuration always, which is 
wrong."

> I am not going to come up with an alternative solution. I did not write the
> buggy Qt4 audio volume handling to begin with, nor the audio output core's,
>  so I do not feel responsible for (fixing) this mess.
No fix, no workaround :/

>  object variable anyway. I never fixed it because I did not have the time
>  and courage to fix all the interfaces. But now, you wrote some
>  mindboggingly complicated logic in the core, so I don't understand the
Reading action & vars, evaluating two change conditions and apply them whith 
the benefit of dealing with only one lock section: That's complex, not 
complicated. Keep the 'mindboggling' if you wish.

Patch set has been on the list for more than 15 days.
Two people had it in hands without pointing any of those problems , mentioned 
here or on the earlier revert.
Otherwise it would haven't been committed at all.

Francois