Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] XAP again - channels, etc.
From: Tim Hockin (thockin_AT_hockin.org)
Date: Sat Mar 22 2003 - 01:39:50 EET
> i know that. In galan it is the same.
> But why should this difference be so clearly stated in the API ?
Can you show me a nice API that makes the two feel similar?
Controls: multiple datatypes, receive events in time-order queues
Ports: are assigned buffers (possibly datatyped) of arrays of data
We could, I suppose, send an event for each block which contains the buffer
pointer for each port, thereby making a Port a type of control. Is there a
benefit to that? It seems to just hide what a Port is behind a control.
> If in the face of gmpi it still makes sense to specify XAP we should
> make it supersede gmpi. But as acceptance is the biggest API feature i
> doubt this makes sense.
Even if GMPI is a smash success, having XAP to the alpha or beta stage will
lend us a lot of credibility when we say to GMPI "This is how XAP does it,
here is the code, and here is the analysis". And GMPI won't be done for at
LEASt a year.
> no... galan is almost an XAP implementation. read the XAP early
> scribbles thread i respawned.
Nothing can be a XAP implementation yet, because we have fundamental model
issues we have not solved. I know David uses Audiality to model and prove
some of the XAP ideas, but it is hardly a XAP implementation, yet :)
Tim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Mar 22 2003 - 01:36:38 EET