Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] and just to finalize ...
From: Robert Jonsson (robert.jonsson_AT_dataductus.se)
Date: Tue Nov 18 2003 - 19:36:10 EET
Tuesday 18 November 2003 15.22 skrev Paul Davis:
> >I'd like to say: woohoo!
>
> i suppose that if i knew this was possible 2 years ago, i would never
> have written JACK. that's the upside, perhaps. should JACK exist? is
> the address space isolation worth it? big questions.
>
As others have also noted, adress isolation is god sent. Whatever you do,
unless jack crashes, almost nothing can bring your application down (a mild
overstatement perhaps *). This is a _major_ feature.
I also think that jack apps should be easier to design and program as opposed
to plugin-centric solutions. The boundaries are dictated by the operating
system, not by the plugin-architecture.
In my mind jack ought to have much better long-term viability than an in-proc
plugin-system. Today you can probably wring out more precious clock cycles
from an in-proc system since the overhead isn't as big. But in a few years
(or already now!) the overhead for this is easily traded for the added
benefits.
/Robert
* Jack does add a few critera of it's own, can you say ZOMBIE ? ;) But this is
a necessity with an in-proc system also.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Nov 18 2003 - 19:38:18 EET