Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(491)

Issue 2453143003: Delete method FrameObject::GetBitstream. (Closed)

Created:
4 years, 1 month ago by nisse-webrtc
Modified:
4 years, 1 month ago
Reviewers:
philipel
CC:
webrtc-reviews_webrtc.org, tterriberry_mozilla.com, zhengzhonghou_agora.io, video-team_agora.io, stefan-webrtc, mflodman
Target Ref:
refs/pending/heads/master
Project:
webrtc
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Delete method FrameObject::GetBitstream. Also change FrameObject::size member to a method, returning the underlying EncodedImage attribute. BUG=None

Patch Set 1 #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+10 lines, -20 lines) Patch
M webrtc/modules/video_coding/frame_buffer2.cc View 1 chunk +1 line, -1 line 0 comments Download
M webrtc/modules/video_coding/frame_buffer2_unittest.cc View 1 chunk +0 lines, -2 lines 0 comments Download
M webrtc/modules/video_coding/frame_object.h View 4 chunks +1 line, -5 lines 0 comments Download
M webrtc/modules/video_coding/frame_object.cc View 3 chunks +1 line, -6 lines 0 comments Download
M webrtc/modules/video_coding/video_packet_buffer_unittest.cc View 4 chunks +7 lines, -6 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 5 (2 generated)
nisse-webrtc
Please take a look. As long as we do use an underlying EncodedImage, we shouldn't ...
4 years, 1 month ago (2016-10-27 09:25:17 UTC) #2
philipel
Given the offline discussion I think we should keep the change to size but not ...
4 years, 1 month ago (2016-10-27 10:39:36 UTC) #3
nisse-webrtc
4 years, 1 month ago (2016-10-27 11:31:34 UTC) #4
On 2016/10/27 10:39:36, philipel wrote:
> Given the offline discussion I think we should keep the change to size but not
> remove GetBitstream().

Ok, see cl https://codereview.webrtc.org/2444193010/. I'm going to close this
one.

> I also suggest we add GetDataPointer() which will return a pointer to a
> continuous piece of memory containing the bitstream for this frame.

Maybe, but there's no point in adding it until it's actually needed.

BTW, I also have some concerns regarding naming in this class. I think
CopyBitstream would be clearer than GetBitstream. And I don't quite like the
class name "FrameObject" either. First, it's useless to tack on "Object" on the
name of a type. Second, as far as I understand, it's intended to represent
encoded data only (unlike webrtc::VideoFrame), and I think it would aid clarity
to have that in the name. So I'd suggest naming the class EncodedFrame.

From my use of this class, I think it represents precisely the information that
needs to be transferred over the wire in a quartc frame (or in a future
refactored rtp transport).

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698