Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] XAP and these
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 02:01:45PM +0100, David Olofson wrote:
OK, sorry, I may have misunderstood the current state of the discussion,
I think it depends on how expressive your time struct is. You do need to
> Anyway, the *real* reason why I'm worrying about this is that such a
As long as you have musical time information you can extrapole from there
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28
: Thu Dec 12 2002 - 16:44:04 EET
From: Steve Harris (S.W.Harris_AT_ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Dec 12 2002 - 16:32:26 EET
> > It does need to be part of the API, but not mixed in with the (very
> > low level) event system.
>
> Right. So, what we need to do now is agree on a sensible time struct.
> That is, basically copying that of VST or JACK.
I've not been following this thread as closly as the pitch one.
> I'm trying to find out whether or not it makes sense to say anything
> more than "in the past" or "in the future" about timestamps that are
> outside the buffer... Do you ever have a *valid* reason to query the
> musical time of an audio time that is outside the time frame you're
> supposed to work within?
know what the delay time would be from now, assuming no changes.
> rule could make life a lot easier for hosts. You can cache time
> structs for the current buffer, but never have to even generate them
> for timestamps that fall outside. (The call would just return one of
> two error codes or something.)
when you need to. Or is that what you're trying to stop?