Re: [linux-audio-dev] Audio routing issues for linux..

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Audio routing issues for linux..
From: Vincent Touquet (vincent.touquet_AT_pandora.be)
Date: Mon Jun 10 2002 - 23:49:01 EEST


(cut)
>I'm afraid i didnt make myself clear. I tried to expain this in
>previous mails, but I think i'm failing so far.
>I perfectly understand what JACK is, but as I said before,
>it's primarily meant for low latency stuff.
>So my proposal consisted in two things.

>1-The first one is to proovide transparent audio routing using
>_existing apis_, this does work since most apps do proovide
>standard buffersizes (100/200) ms latency. (As fun as this sounds,
>many VST/DXi plugins work at these rates using the "windows kernel
>streaming" hehe :).
How would you provide an existing API ?!
So, you have this existing API, and then ?
You go and change the internals ??
Do you want to change the semantics of an existing API
or what ? What do you do with existing code that
uses this API and relies on its semantics ?

Unless you can specify *in code* what you
mean by this, I qualify this idea as
a load of male cow excrement.
Sorry for being harsh, I will happily
clean up after myself if you get to prove
your point.

This is not a call for a flame war.
Sometimes being loud and using an angry
tone has much more potential of "bringing the message".

>2-I also DO aknowledge a _new_ API for doing this low latency, JACK
>works perfect for this. I've never said it doesnt. When I said that
>JACK should become part of Alsa-lib i've meant that jack could go in a
>lower layer than it currently goes (maybe a driver level or
>something?) so it can capture and automatically "jackify" the data
>from existing apps that use the native api (alsa/oss emulation).
>The stream doesnt need to go "low latency" (and from what I know JACK
>should support normal latency apps fine) but you can still route
>existing apps and share the the device.
>How realistic do you think this approach is?
What is the point in a lower layer ?
There is clearly some lower layer fallacy.
Just like people go "ooh" when you put something
inside the kernel, instead of in userspace.
There is *no point* in doing stuff lowlevel
if you can do it highlevel, with more comprehensive
code (and less chance to fsck up).

Ok, I'm wishing to give you some credit here.
I think you have some point I do not get.
Suppose I give you a fully working API
with the implementation of some form.
What do you want to do with it.
What do you mean by pushing it to a lower layer ??

Also note that this is Linux Audio _Dev_
I really look forward to hearing valid
points from a developers point of view
from what you have been suggesting.

best regards,
Vincent


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jun 10 2002 - 23:39:09 EEST