[mythtv] Input switching question

[Jerry Rubinow]

On 2/16/06, David Engel <gigem at comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 10:37:58PM -0500, Jerry Rubinow wrote:
> > Thanks Bruce, that all makes sense.  Yes, I see how those are
> > important considerations.  So is this a good summary of the
> > requirements for implementing IGs:
> >
> > 1.  Scheduler has to consider all inputs in an IG as a unit when
> > determining conflicts/placing items in the schedule.
>
> Yes.  This is easy.
>
> > 2.  Channel changing in live tv has to know that it can't use any
> > input from an in-use IG.
>
> Yes.  I'm not familiar with that code, but it's probably not too hard
> to make this change.
>
> > 3.  When notifying an input in an IG to stop what it's doing, the
> > notifier has to notify all inputs in the IG.
>
> The problem is that the scheduler doesn't currently tell a recorder to
> stop doing anything.  It only tells a recorder to start doing
> something new.  This would be a whole new concept for the scheduler
> and may or may not be difficult depending on what problems come from
> it.
>
> David

What do you think about the idea of doing #1 and #2, and dealing with
#3 afterwards?  The consequence would be that if someone was watching
live tv on a recorder in an input group, and the scheduler told
another recorder in that IG to start recording, the person watching
live would see the show change out from under them when the external
tuner got its channel changed.

However, that situation can already happen in Myth as it is now, so no
one would be any worse off, but they'd have the added capabilities of
#1 and #2.  Or does implementing #1 and #2 compilcate or make worse
the symptoms of #3 somehow?

Of course it would be best to have all three, and the only reason I'm
proposing postponing #3 is that I'm in need of Input Groups now and I
think I may be capable of implementing #1 and #2, but probably am not
qualified for #3 (and #3 isn't as important for my system
specifically).  Because of the nature of development, I can't assume
that anyone else is going to be working on this any time soon, but I
would like any changes I make to be integrated in to the dev tree.

So would a partial solution be acceptable?

-Jerry