Recherche avancée

Médias (91)

Autres articles (76)

  • MediaSPIP v0.2

    21 juin 2013, par

    MediaSPIP 0.2 est la première version de MediaSPIP stable.
    Sa date de sortie officielle est le 21 juin 2013 et est annoncée ici.
    Le fichier zip ici présent contient uniquement les sources de MediaSPIP en version standalone.
    Comme pour la version précédente, il est nécessaire d’installer manuellement l’ensemble des dépendances logicielles sur le serveur.
    Si vous souhaitez utiliser cette archive pour une installation en mode ferme, il vous faudra également procéder à d’autres modifications (...)

  • XMP PHP

    13 mai 2011, par

    Dixit Wikipedia, XMP signifie :
    Extensible Metadata Platform ou XMP est un format de métadonnées basé sur XML utilisé dans les applications PDF, de photographie et de graphisme. Il a été lancé par Adobe Systems en avril 2001 en étant intégré à la version 5.0 d’Adobe Acrobat.
    Étant basé sur XML, il gère un ensemble de tags dynamiques pour l’utilisation dans le cadre du Web sémantique.
    XMP permet d’enregistrer sous forme d’un document XML des informations relatives à un fichier : titre, auteur, historique (...)

  • Use, discuss, criticize

    13 avril 2011, par

    Talk to people directly involved in MediaSPIP’s development, or to people around you who could use MediaSPIP to share, enhance or develop their creative projects.
    The bigger the community, the more MediaSPIP’s potential will be explored and the faster the software will evolve.
    A discussion list is available for all exchanges between users.

Sur d’autres sites (11554)

  • Multiprocess FATE Revisited

    26 juin 2010, par Multimedia Mike — FATE Server, Python

    I thought I had brainstormed a simple, elegant, multithreaded, deadlock-free refactoring for FATE in a previous post. However, I sort of glossed over the test ordering logic which I had not yet prototyped. The grim, possibly deadlock-afflicted reality is that the main thread needs to be notified as tests are completed. So, the main thread sends test specs through a queue to be executed by n tester threads and those threads send results to a results aggregator thread. Additionally, the results aggregator will need to send completed test IDs back to the main thread.



    But when I step back and look at the graph, I can’t rationalize why there should be a separate results aggregator thread. That was added to cut down on deadlock possibilities since the main thread and the tester threads would not be waiting for data from each other. Now that I’ve come to terms with the fact that the main and the testers need to exchange data in realtime, I think I can safely eliminate the result thread. Adding more threads is not the best way to guard against race conditions and deadlocks. Ask xine.



    I’m still hung up on the deadlock issue. I have these queues through which the threads communicate. At issue is the fact that they can cause a thread to block when inserting an item if the queue is "full". How full is full ? Immaterial ; seeking to answer such a question is not how you guard against race conditions. Rather, it seems to me that one side should be doing non-blocking queue operations.

    This is how I’m planning to revise the logic in the main thread :

    test_set = set of all tests to execute
    tests_pending = test_set
    tests_blocked = empty set
    tests_queue = multi-consumer queue to send test specs to tester threads
    results_queue = multi-producer queue through which tester threads send results
    while there are tests in tests_pending :
      pop a test from test_set
      if test depends on any tests that appear in tests_pending :
        add test to tests_blocked
      else :
        add test to tests_queue in a non-blocking manner
        if tests_queue is full, add test to tests_blocked
    

    while there are results in the results_queue :
    get a result from result_queue in non-blocking manner
    remove the corresponding test from tests_pending

    if tests_blocked is non-empty :
    sleep for 1 second
    test_set = tests_blocked
    tests_blocked = empty set
    else :
    insert n shutdown signals, one from each thread

    go to the top of the loop and repeat until there are no more tests

    while there are results in the results_queue :
    get a result from result_queue in a blocking manner

    Not mentioned in the pseudocode (so it doesn’t get too verbose) is logic to check whether the retrieved test result is actually an end-of-thread signal. These are accounted and the whole test process is done when one is received for each thread.

    On the tester thread side, it’s safe for them to do blocking test queue retrievals and blocking result queue insertions. The reason for the 1-second delay before resetting tests_blocked and looping again is because I want to guard against the situation where tests A and B are to be run, A depends of B running first, and while B is running (and happens to be a long encoding test), the main thread is spinning about, obsessively testing whether it’s time to insert A into the tests queue.

    It all sounds just crazy enough to work. In fact, I coded it up and it does work, sort of. The queue gets blocked pretty quickly. Instead of sleeping, I decided it’s better to perform the put operation using a 1-second timeout.

    Still, I’m paranoid about the precise operation of the IPC queue mechanism at work here. What happens if I try to stuff in a test spec that’s a bit too large ? Will the module take whatever I give it and serialize it through the queue as soon as it can ? I think an impromptu science project is in order.

    big-queue.py :

    PYTHON :
    1. # !/usr/bin/python
    2.  
    3. import multiprocessing
    4. import Queue
    5.  
    6. def f(q) :
    7.   str = q.get()
    8.   print "reader function got a string of %d characters" % (len(str))
    9.  
    10. q = multiprocessing.Queue()
    11. p = multiprocessing.Process(target=f, args=(q,))
    12. p.start()
    13. try :
    14.   q.put_nowait(’a’ * 100000000)
    15. except Queue.Full :
    16.   print "queue full"
    $ ./big-queue.py
    reader function got a string of 100000000 characters
    

    Since 100 MB doesn’t even make it choke, FATE’s little test specs shouldn’t pose any difficulty.

  • Seam carving

    9 juin 2010, par Mikko Koppanen — Imagick, PHP stuff

    Today I was reading trough the ImageMagick ChangeLog and noticed an interesting entry. “Add support for liquid rescaling”. I rushed to check the MagickWand API docs and there it was : MagickLiquidRescaleImage ! After about ten minutes of hacking the Imagick support was done. Needless to say ; I was excited :)

    For those who don’t know what seam carving is check the demo here. More detailed information about the algorithm can be found here : “Seam Carving for Content-Aware Image Resizing” by Shai Avidan and Ariel Shamir

    To use this functionality you need to install at least ImageMagick 6.3.8-2 and liblqr. Remember to pass –with-lqr to ImageMagick configuration line. You can get liblqr here : http://liblqr.wikidot.com/. The Imagick side of the functionality should appear in the CVS today if everything goes as planned.

    Here is a really simple example just to illustrate the results of the operation. The parameters might be far from optimal (didn’t do much testing yet). The original dimensions of image are 500×375 and the resulting size is 500×200.

    Update : the functionality is pending until license issues are solved.

    1. < ?php
    2.  
    3. /* Create new object */
    4. $im = new Imagick( ’test.jpg’ ) ;
    5.  
    6. /* Scale down */
    7. $im->liquidRescaleImage( 500, 200, 3, 25 ) ;
    8.  
    9. /* Display */
    10. header( ’Content-Type : image/jpg’ ) ;
    11. echo $im ;
    12.  
    13.  ?>

    The original image by flickr/jennconspiracy

    result

    And the result :

    result

    Update. On kenrick’s request here is an image which is scaled down to 300×300

    result2

  • Revision 28933 : on bouge

    31 mai 2009, par ben.spip@… — Log

    on bouge