...taking into account the prospecive usage context
where the builder expressions will be invoked from within
a media-library plug-in, using std::string_view to pass
the symbolic information seems like a good fit, because
the given spec will typically be assembled from some
building blocks, and thus in itself not be literal data.
Building a precise Frame Cache is a tough job, and is doomed to fail
when attempting to tie cache invalidation to state changes. The only
viable path is to create a system of systematic tagging of processing
steps, and use this as foundation for chained hash values, linked
in accordance to the actual processing structure.
This is complicated by the secondary concern of maintaining memory efficacy
for the render node model, which can be expected to grow to massive scale.
And even while this invocation can not be fully devised right now,
an attempt can be made to build a foundation that is not outright
wasteful, by detaching the logical information from the specific
weaving pattern used for implementation, and by minimising the
representation in memory and computing the compound information
on-demand....
The immediate next goal is to verify properties of render nodes
generated by the builder framework; two kinds of validations
can be distinguished
* structural aspects of the wiring
* the fact that processing functionality is invoked in proper order
Looking into the structural aspects brings about the necessity
to identify the actual processing function bound into some functor.
Some recapitulation of goals and requirements revealed, that this
can not be a merely technical identity record — because the intention
is to base the ''cache key'' on chained processing node identities,
so that the key is stable as long as the user-visible results will be
equivalent. And while structural data can be aggregated, at the
core this information must be provided by the scheme embedded
into the domain ontology, which is tasked with invoking the
builder in order to implement a ''specific processing-asset''
Since it would in fact be possible to access and write beyond the configured storage,
simply by using the builder API without considering consistency,
it seems advisable to use explicit runtime checks here, instead of
only assertions, and to throw an exception when violating bounds.
Moreover, unsuccessfully attempted to better arrange the functionality
between PortBuilder and WeavingBuilder; seemingly we have an rather tight
coupling here, and also the expectations regarding the processing function
seem to be too tight (but that's the reason why it's an prototype...)
__Analysis__: what kind of verifications are sensible to employ
to cover building, wiring and invocation of render nodes?
Notably, a test should cover requirements and observable functionality,
while ''avoiding direct hard coupling to implementation internals...''
__Draft__: the most simple node builder invocation conceivable...
...and this line of analysis brings us deep into the ''Buffer Provider''
concept developed in 2012 — which appears to be very well to the point
and stands the test of time.
Adding some ''variadic arguments'' at the right place surprisingly leads
to an ''extension point'' — which in turn directly taps into the
still quite uncharted territory interfacing to a **Domain Ontology**;
the latter is assumed to define how to deal with entities and relationships
defined by some media handling library like e.g. FFmpeg.
So what we're set to do here is actually ''ontology mapping....''
