Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: Toward a modularization of audio component
From: Karl MacMillan (karlmac_AT_peabody.jhu.edu)
Date: Fri May 04 2001 - 19:48:56 EEST
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.
> 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.
> But it seems that design is postponed to implementation and that to have
> a versatile API is worse that to have a limited API...
>
> What I've to say... I'm definitely not in sync with this way of
> thinking.
>
> I can emulate a limited API with a wider one, but try to do the
> opposite...
>
It is not a matter of limited as opposed to wider but different goals.
Also, it seems to me that the most important goal for Alsa right now is a
stable api. I, like many people probably, updated their software to work
with the beta in anticipation of a 1.0 release. Regardless of whether
these api changes are good or bad, a stable api for Alsa will help many of
us developing audio software for linux. Is this going to happen in the
near future?
Karl
> --
> Abramo Bagnara mailto:abramo_AT_alsa-project.org
>
> Opera Unica Phone: +39.546.656023
> Via Emilia Interna, 140
> 48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy
>
> ALSA project http://www.alsa-project.org
> It sounds good!
> ------
> To unsubscribe from <alsa-devel_AT_alsa-project.org> mailing list send message
> 'unsubscribe' in the body of message to <alsa-devel-request_AT_alsa-project.org>.
> BUG/SMALL PATCH REPORTING SYSTEM: http://www.alsa-project.org/cgi-bin/bugs
>
_____________________________________________________
| Karl W. MacMillan |
| Computer Music Department |
| Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University |
| karlmac_AT_peabody.jhu.edu |
| www.peabody.jhu.edu/~karlmac |
-----------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed May 23 2001 - 22:29:37 EEST