Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: Pragmatic comparison of approaches to audio engine
From: Karl MacMillan (karlmac_AT_peabody.jhu.edu)
Date: Mon May 14 2001 - 19:20:24 EEST
>
> It seems to me that if we go for the single process model then in the
> short term we have nice lowlatency, fast apps, but in a few years we may
> be suffering from useful, but not 100% stable systems. Whereas if we go
> for the multi process model we will have systems that are (relativly) high
> latency in the short term, but in the long term they will be down the the
> <3 ms mark and stable.
>
> Bit of a rock and a hard place.
>
> Can we wrapper the API with library calls, macros or whatever so
> that with just a recompile apps can move from one model to another? I
> don't want to loose the ability to do low latency work with my current
> machine, but I also don't want to shoot myself in the foot by backing a
> model which might make future software unreliable.
>
It seems to me that if a simple enough api is choosen where the buffers
are allocated by the server it would not be necessary to even recompile.
Each plugin could be loaded into its own 'server' which really just
handles the multi-process communication in that model or one server that
is either single or multi-threaded. I haven't put a lot of thought into
this, but it seems possible.
Karl
> - Steve
>
_____________________________________________________
| Karl W. MacMillan |
| Computer Music Department |
| Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University |
| karlmac_AT_peabody.jhu.edu |
| mambo.peabody.jhu.edu/~karlmac |
-----------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon May 14 2001 - 19:38:02 EEST