Subject: RE: [linux-audio-dev] LADMEA revisited (was: LAAGA and supporting programs)
From: Richard W.E. Furse (richard_AT_muse.demon.co.uk)
Date: Tue Oct 02 2001 - 22:22:34 EEST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-linux-audio-dev_AT_music.columbia.edu
> [mailto:owner-linux-audio-dev_AT_music.columbia.edu]On Behalf Of Paul Davis
> Sent: 01 October 2001 17:32
> To: Richard Guenther
> Cc: linux-audio-dev_AT_music.columbia.edu
> Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] LADMEA revisited (was: LAAGA and
> supporting programs)
[...]
> However, as I pointed out yesterday, and as Richard himself notes,
> there is no particular problem imagining an API with more flexibility
> like LADMEA "containing" "exchanges" like JACK.
[...]
Yep, absolutely. The reasons I'm not in a state of panic over about
proliferation of a subset API is that it shouldn't be hard to retrofit a
JACK exchange with LADMEA exchange support in the same way that it isn't
hard to fit LADSPA support to a host. It would be a bit more of a pain to
retrofit clients, but a generic JACK->LADMEA wrapper library probably
shouldn't be too hard to write although there would be a small performance
hit.
I'd probably be arguing more if I had time to build a decent LADMEA SDK now,
but this is unlikely unless I get more bored at work (this frees up
brainspace). ANY movement towards cross-app comms now is good and I don't
want people doing nothing waiting for things to resolve.
Advice to client coders: read the LADMEA API - if you like it, give me some
feedback. If you don't understand it, hassle me. Otherwise, go with JACK: if
this really gives you everything you need it won't be backbreaking to
retrofit later on (when I get really bored ;-).
--Richard
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Oct 02 2001 - 22:21:46 EEST