Re: [PATCH] upnp: add support for thumbnails

[Iago Toral <itoral igalia com>]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:39:20 +0100, Guillaume Emont <gemont igalia com> 
wrote:
> On 21/01/2011 08:53, Iago Toral wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:26:54 +0100, Guillaume Emont
> > <gemont igalia com> wrote:
> > (...)
> > > +static gboolean
> > > +has_thumbnail_marker (xmlNode *node)
> > > +{
> > > +  gchar *dlna_stuff;
> > > +  gboolean ret;
> > > +
> > > +  dlna_stuff = didl_res_get_protocol_info (node, 3);
> > > +  ret = strstr("JPEG_TN", dlna_stuff) != NULL;
> > > +
> > > +  g_free (dlna_stuff);
> > > +  return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > (...)
> >
> > if this is the only code required to support other image formats, 
> > then
> > I see no reason to ignore PNG_* or JPEG_SM, even if they are not 
> > that
> > common, or am I missing something?
> In get_thumbnail(), this function is only used to give priority to a
> JPEG_TN over other <res> that don't provide such a marker, to get out 
> of
> the loop earlier. Right now, PNG_* and JPEG_SM are supported by the
> "last <res/> with an image/* mimetype" rule, only, in case a JPEG_TN 
> is
> there, it is given priority (or maybe we could remove that 
> altogether,
> and only apply the last <res/> rule, which would make the code 
> simpler).

Ah, I see. I was asking because you said this:

"In the end, I did not implement PNG_* nor JPEG_SM, as they seem 
relatively
uncommon to me. They can easily be added later on though."

Then I understand you only meant that you did not implement means to 
give them priority over the JPEG_TN version, which is the thing that 
could be added later on.

Iago