Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] LAAGA vs ALSA ... silent for a while
From: Paul Davis (pbd_AT_Op.Net)
Date: Tue Jun 26 2001 - 05:25:24 EEST
>> I think that the best solution would be the integration of
>> ALSA with LAAGA (with obvious mutual benefits). This likely
>> means some changes to ALSA API too.
>
>I would like LAAGA to be a fast, lean, easy to use, higher
>level (than the sound driver itself) API that _hides_ the
>hardware interface completely from all clients that use it. It
I want slightly more than that actually. I want it to hide (like the
BeOS MediaKit and the Apple OS-X CoreAudio API) virtually all of the
*concepts* associated with a hardware interface as well.
>seems to me that it should be kept separate from the driver
>itself so that it can potentially be ported to other drivers
>and or platforms.
I agree entirely. In my prototype code, we have:
client engine
| |
V V
+-----------------------+
| liblaaga.so |<- driver
+-----------------------+
it also happens that in most cases (not all) a "driver" will be a
client also, but thats not something for application/client/plugin
writers to care about.
also note that the definition of a driver in my prototype is simply an
object/thread that calls laaga_engine_process(nframes_t)
periodically. thats more or less the only definition there is of what
it has to do, although it also needs to respond to certain calls from
the engine (perhaps by doing nothing).
--p
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jun 26 2001 - 05:27:59 EEST