[mythtv-users] Would a capture card by any other name still record as sweet?

[Karl Newman]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Simon Hobson <linux at thehobsons.co.uk>
wrote:

> Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> > My response will probably go into the permanent-moderation file*, but...
> >
> > Why?  The current model takes note of the fact that devices are often
> > grouped, and the scheduler needs to know about it, and also that grouped
> > devices often share configuration parameters.
> >
> > If neither of those things has changed in the physical model, then the
> > software model probably oughtn't change either.
> >
> > Why is it?
>
> Which is exactly the question I was pondering asking.
> The current model was developed for a reason, and I don't see that the
> primary reason has gone away - unless something fundamental has changed.
>

If you read the post on the dev list (
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/dev/581886), David explains
the main reason--it's because capture cards and the way we use them have
changed. The original setup with separate cards and inputs was to support
cards/encoders with multiple mutually exclusive (analog) inputs such as
S-video connected to a VCR, composite connected to a cable box, etc. Only
one of the inputs could be used at a time. The indication is that this
arrangement is quite uncommon now, but he plans to still support it
(automatically/transparently?) via input groups. Also this flattens the
virtual tuners (which were never considered in the original incarnation)
and solves some scheduling issues with them. I recommend reading his post.

Karl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-users/attachments/20150121/a8081cad/attachment.html>