Re: [linux-audio-dev] mux concept paper

James McDermott wrote:
> oh - you wrote miXo - of course. (i wrote a peer machine or two.) go buzz devs!
>
> i think everyone who's ever used buzz for more than a couple of hours
> wants a new, stable, cross-platform version. (and there are *loads* of
> re-implementation projects, including at least one linux one.) i even
> have some semi-formed plans myself...

..want to go into more detail?
>
>
>>A lot of time is spent on finding the processing order. But this only
>>needs to be done once in a while.
>
>
> i'd be very surprised by that (i haven't looked at any code though).
> surely it's a very light task, computationally? i'm thinking that if
> the machine network is represented by a tree, just a depth-first
> search through the tree gets you the right processing order?
hmm..., maybe you right. I had something working about 2 years ago --
then called muzz :) -- and that spent most of it's time doing that tree
thingy. But it was probably a bad way of doing it in general.. there is
alos this thing about inputs and outputs or more general connectors and
how to handle the logics behind them..

mimo

-- 
Please note that this account is being filtered using anti UCE systems. 
If you send email to this account make sure that it could not be 
mistaken as UCE.