[PATCH v4 2/5] winegstreamer: Add stub bytestream handler.

[Nikolay Sivov]

On 9/1/20 4:54 PM, Derek Lesho wrote:
>
> On 9/1/20 2:29 AM, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
>> On 8/28/20 11:48 PM, Derek Lesho wrote:
>>> @@ -6030,7 +6030,7 @@ static HRESULT
>>> resolver_get_bytestream_handler(IMFByteStream *stream, const WCHA
>>>         for (i = 0, hr = E_FAIL; i < ARRAY_SIZE(hkey_roots); ++i)
>>>       {
>>> -        const WCHAR *namesW[2] = { mimeW, url_ext };
>>> +        const WCHAR *namesW[3] = { mimeW, url_ext, L"wine/all" };
>>>           HKEY hkey, hkey_handler;
>>>             if (RegOpenKeyA(hkey_roots[i], streamhandlerspath, &hkey))
>> Is it a way to avoid registering specific types/extensions? Could you
>> explain why this is better than regular registration.
>>
> Yes, this is a way to avoid registering specific types.  This was
> zebediah's suggestion, and his reasoning was:
>
>> Even if some application creates CLSID_MPEG4ByteStreamHandler manually,
>> and we need to hook up this decoder thereto, I think it makes more sense
>> for the original patch to create it under a generic name (maybe
>> CLSID_GStreamerByteStreamHandler) and custom CLSID. Then, in another
>> patch, we can hook up CLSID_MPEG4ByteStreamHandler to the same object.
>>
>> Media Foundation doesn't make it as easy as DirectShow to plug in a
>> generic catch-all handler, i.e. we can't just set some registry keys and
>> have done, but regardless I think it's something we want to do, even if
>> that means making the modification in mfreadwrite instead.
I don't know, I don't see a problem in registering whole list of mime
types/extensions, which then could be tweaked. Is it the size of this
list that makes this undesirable? In practice it will grow to maybe 20
entries I think.

P.S. mfreadwrite was mentioned, should that be mfplat.dll or does
mfreadwrite need special handling for some reason?