Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] Re: [linux-audio-dev] laaga, round 2
From: Jim Peters (jim_AT_aguazul.demon.co.uk)
Date: Thu May 10 2001 - 12:19:35 EEST
Paul Davis wrote:
> (lots of stuff)
Basically, my heart is sinking. You're very confident that everything
is fine with your approach, but I know very well that it will cause
problems down the line. But if you can't see that, what can I do ?
Either vanish quietly or enter into heated discussions, but either way
nothing much changes if neither one of us budges.
> You seem to think that plugins "reserve" channels in some kind of
> exclusive sense. Thats not true.
What I'm saying is that if my app always writes to channels 110-113,
then any other app doing that is going to clash with my app (or at
least get its output muddled with my output), and so to avoid clashes
like this, we'd need to have a central register of reserved channel
numbers.
Not that I think this is a good idea at all - I'm just playing out one
possible scenario based on your model.
> No, they save state. Ardour saves all state when you ask it to (and at
> a few other times too); next time you start it up, it comes up with
> the same connections as before. Simple, eh?
What makes you think I'm going to have things connected the same every
time ? Setting up connections is a single task for the user, but
you're asking me to do this in 5 different places, switching from app
to app. I think its better to do this in just one place. In a
studio, that one place is the patchbay. You're suggestion is
equivalent to asking me to cable my pieces of equipment directly to
one another - you know, take a long jack lead from my CD player to my
mixing desk, then another long lead from my mixing desk to my effect
unit. No-one does that in a studio - they have a patchbay. So, why
can't we have a patchbay (or functional equivalent) ?
> >Not only that, but each application is going to have to provide their
> >own GUI for selecting input/output channel numbers, so this operation
> >is going to be different in each application.
>
> Damn right! I don't want *your* model of how to connect these things
> interfering with *my* GUI design. Nothing personal there, Jim :)
Agreed, but I'm not interfering. I'm saying: leave it wide open - let
anyone write a connection manager, using whatever style they like. If
you want to put some connection-manager functions into ardour, well so
much the better. The more the merrier ! The API will make sure that
connection managers are informed when connections are adjusted from
elsewhere.
> >- It would be possible to load and save connection settings, so that
> > you don't have to connect up things manually each time.
>
> This is an internal application task, IMHO.
To me this is a centralised connection-management task.
You're comparing your method to a patchbay, and you keep on claiming
that these channel allocations are not `connections'. But they are -
if two applications are using the same channel they are connected.
This is different to a patchbay where each piece of gear has its own
dedicated set of `channels', and you can only make connections by
physically patching these channels together.
Well, I don't know how this is going to resolve. Just have to wait
and see.
Jim
--
Jim Peters / __ | \ Aguazul
/ /| /| )| /| / )|| \
jim_AT_aguazul. \ (_|(_|(_|(_| )(_|I / www.aguazul.
demon.co.uk \ ._) _/ / demon.co.uk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu May 10 2001 - 12:42:43 EEST