> In particular,
> codecs have their own implementations of endian conversion, bit reading,
> windowing functions, huffman decoding, etc. and I'll change some of
> these to use a common implementation in codeclib.

Isn't that as it is because we've imported codec code from other
projects? And don't we strive to do as little changes to that code as
possible to make upgrading easier?

> The initial focus will be on getting the library working, not on a nice
> API. In order to appeal to software other than Rockbox...

IMO the API should be laid out first. How else can you say that the
library "works"? Besides: a nice API would be a very appealing thing for
other projects (other than Rockbox).

Just my thoughts. Details will of course be worked out with the project
mentor.

AL
Received on 2011-05-15