Speex dev - Nov 2007 - JitterBuffer in SVN

Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
> Thorvald Natvig a ?crit :
>   
>> I see you're changing the jitter buffer around quite a bit. Could
you
>> let us know when it's ready for general testing? (At the moment it
>> doesn't handle missing packets at all)
>>     
>
> While I'm not completely done yet, I thought the current version was
> working. Can you tell me what happens exactly (without output if
> possible) so I can fix it? Also, I'd be very interesting in getting
test
> "data" for the jitter buffer. By that I mean, just a log of how
you are
> calling it. More specifically:
>
> - Every time you call _put(), print the timestamp and span of the packet
> - Every time you call _get(), print the desired_span argument (it's a
> new argument)
> - Every time you call _tick(), with no argument.
>
> For example, the file could look like:
>
> PUT 1000 100
> GET 100
> TICK
> PUT 1100 100
> GET 100
> TICK
> ...
>
> That would help me make sure that the jitter buffer works for your case.
> I actually encourage everyone using the jitter buffer to do the same.
>
> Cheers,
>
> 	Jean-Marc
>   
Indeed there is a new parameter, and apparantly my dependency 
information didn't cover system headers. So it recompiled the new jitter 
buffer, but never recompiled the buffering part of my application before 
linking. I tested my "simulate packet loss" mode and it couldn't
recover
from that. (It did work with zero loss however.. odd).

Once I updated the application to use the updated function call, the 
jitter buffer worked again, giving sane results even with +/- 30 ms 
arrival times and 20% packet loss. So sorry for bothering you with a 
bogus bug report :(

Best wishes,
Thorvald

> Once I updated the application to use the updated function call, the
> jitter buffer worked again, giving sane results even with +/- 30 ms
> arrival times and 20% packet loss. So sorry for bothering you with a
> bogus bug report :(
Happy to hear it works. ...but I'm still interesting on test data for
the jitter buffer if you have some time.

	Jean-Marc

Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
>> Once I updated the application to use the updated function call, the
>> jitter buffer worked again, giving sane results even with +/- 30 ms
>> arrival times and 20% packet loss. So sorry for bothering you with a
>> bogus bug report :(
>>     
>
> Happy to hear it works. ...but I'm still interesting on test data for
> the jitter buffer if you have some time.
>   
Hi,

I added some logging to my last debug build, but users stopped using it 
and rolled back to the previous version due to all the printfs. I see 
these are now removed, so I'll do a new build. However, is there any 
chance you could change to spxprintf() or something similar which we 
could override easily? This would reduce the amount of "errors"
reported
to users (who then report it as a bug to me), and would also allow me to 
capture the output and include it in the autogenerated bugreports if 
there are any problems.

Best regards,
Thorvald