Wallace: Behind the Scenes

Out of curiousity, how interested are people in reading about the technical details behind the Wallace rewrite? I could write up a couple posts about some of the technical challenges encountered and/or achievements made since the last update, but there’s not all that much in the way of stuff that can be shown off.

For example, does anyone want to hear about how user input is collected? Or maintaining audio/video synchronization and minimizing audio lag? Or performing caps negotiation with downstream elements in the processing pipeline? (I’ve certainly learned quite a bit on that last one over the past couple days.) There’s interesting stuff there for anyone who wants to know more about writing GStreamer elements or who is just curious about what kind of processing is needed to make Wallace work.

I’ll probably write about some of this stuff anyway, if only to have it out there and Googleable for anyone that’s interested. But if there’s not a whole lot of interest in that sort of thing, that’ll set the bar higher for deciding what’s blogworthy about Wallace development, especially given that there’s a non-trivial investment in time preparing a post about something like that.

5 Responses

  1. I don’t understand most of it. :-D

  2. I’d support a post about it if nothing more than to be a resource to others (who may or, more likely, may not be regular kuliniewicz readers) who run into similar issues. One thing that separates us from the monkeys is our passing of knowledge via written repositories of knowledge. I would say at some point your posting on those intricacies will come in handy to some poor hacker down the road.

  3. I use a different stack in my day to day code writing, so I’d be more interested in the essence of Wallace’s solving algorithm than in the supporting details. That said, I would be interested in posts that express what was different than what you expected on the non-core stuff (audio, input, etc).

  4. I’d be more interested in the essence of Wallace’s solving algorithm than in the supporting details


  5. The consensus is pretty much what I expected it would be.

Comments are closed.