Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: Toward a modularizationof audio component
From: Abramo Bagnara (abramo_AT_alsa-project.org)
Date: Fri May 04 2001 - 22:48:00 EEST
Karl MacMillan wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 May 2001, Abramo Bagnara wrote:
>
> > Paul Davis wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The point of LADSPA was to be able to share audio programming efforts
> > > on the DSP level. It doesn't use an ALSA-like API at all. The point of
> > > LAAGA is to be able to share programming efforts and have them
> > > interact at a somewhat higher level. You seem to feel that the ALSA
> > > PCM API, or a somewhat modified version of it, is an appropriate model
> > > with which to do that. I think that a much simpler API is possible,
> > > and more appropriate, and I think we have some good examples of the
> > > kind of API I mean already.
> >
> > The point is that I don't want *another* API, I think that to have *only
> > one* API is the true strength of the proposal.
> >
>
> One API per task is appropriate, but in this case I think there are two
> tasks. The alsa api has always made an effort to expose all of the
> features of the sound hardware, which is great. LAAGA (or rewire, etc) is
> about providing simple enviroment for applications. This seems, to me, to
> be better served by more than one api.
What's different from to read audio from an hardware capture stream and
to read audio from an mp3 decoder, a FX, a synthesizer?
They have the same contents: audio. Now why I'd need to write different
input module to be able to access each of them?
>
> > LAAGA on LADSPA on CSL on ARTS on OSS? No thanks. (the example is
> > arbitrary)
> >
> > I'm proposing a variation of the good old principle "Everything is a
> > file": a general purpose honest API for audio stream transfer/control.
> >
>
> But already in the alsa api everything is not a file. As long as alsa lib
> is required this abstraction is already gone. This is not a bad thing,
> just a different thing.
I've said it's a *variant*. The right slogan (if needed ;-) might be
"every audio stream is an audio stream" or "one API for everything".
I think that the benefits to have only one API are evident, I'd like to
understand better the drawbacks you see.
But please don't tell me: "Hey the ALSA PCM API, is too versatile for
this, something simpler will do the same job..." because this is a fake
argument: versatility is not something that impose extra efforts.
I'd like to hear something like: "In this way you cannot reach the
performance level we need, because... etc." or "That solution does not
solve this problem: ...." and something like that.
-- Abramo Bagnara mailto:abramo_AT_alsa-project.orgOpera Unica Phone: +39.546.656023 Via Emilia Interna, 140 48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy
ALSA project http://www.alsa-project.org It sounds good!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri May 04 2001 - 23:36:47 EEST