Not all aggregator subclasses will have a single pad template called sink_%u
and might do something special depending on what the application requests.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=757018
Otherwise they will receive a QOS event that has earliest_time=0 (because we
can't have negative timestamps), and consider their buffer as too late
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=754356
In the case where you have a source giving the GstAggregator smaller
buffers than it uses, when it reaches a timeout, it will consume the
first buffer, then try to read another buffer for the pad. If the
previous element is not fast enough, it may get the next buffer even
though it may be queued just before. To prevent that race, the easiest
solution is to move the queue inside the GstAggregatorPad itself. It
also means that there is no need for strange code cause by increasing
the min latency without increasing the max latency proportionally.
This also means queuing the synchronized events and possibly acting
on them on the src task.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=745768
Before aggregator based elements always started at running time 0,
now it's possible to select the first input buffer running time or
explicitly set a start-time value.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=749966
Adding a pad will add a new upstream that might have a bigger minimum latency,
so we might have to wait longer. Or it might be the first live upstream, in
which case we will have to start deadline based aggregation.
Removing a pad will remove a new upstream that might have had the biggest
latency, so we can now stop waiting a bit earlier. Or it might be the last
live upstream, in which case we can stop deadline based aggregation.
And keep on querying upstream until we get a reply.
Also, the _get_latency_unlocked() method required being calld
with a private lock, so removed the _unlocked() variant from the API.
And it now returns GST_CLOCK_TIME_NONE when the element is not live as
we think that 0 upstream latency is possible.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=745768
One has to use the src_lock anyway to protect the min/max/live so they
can be notified atomically to the src thread to wake it up on changes,
such as property changes. So no point in having a second lock.
Also, the object lock was being held across a call to
GST_ELEMENT_WARNING, guaranteeing a deadlock.
While gst_aggregator_iterate_sinkpads() makes sure that every pad is only
visited once, even when the iterator has to resync, this is not all we have
to do for querying the latency. When the iterator resyncs we actually have
to query all pads for the latency again and forget our previous results. It
might have happened that a pad was removed, which influenced the result of
the latency query.
It was between another function and its helper function before, which was
confusing when reading the code as it had nothing to do with the other
functions.
This lock is not what is commonly known as a "stream lock" in GStremer,
it's not recursive and it's taken from the non-serialized FLUSH_START event.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=742684
steal_buffer() + unref seems to be a wide-spread idiom
(which perhaps indicates that something is not quite
right with the way aggregator pad works currently).
