Bob Ham wrote:
> Of course it needs to handle it. It needs to cleanly shut down due to
> the catastrophic failure.
You'd want that during live performance? :)
In a debug version, it could be desirable, but for "production" use
(sorry for webspeak) it is unacceptable. It should be as fault-tolerant
as possible in those situations.
Perhaps it should be handled via a configuration option (live
performance mode checkbox).
> I think it's important *to* break the current API due to its many
> issues. Why do you think that backwards compatibility with the current
> API is important?
LASH adoption was slow enough to start with. Several projects exist that
use current LASH, some are quite useful (Hydrogen, Specimen), do you
want to personally update each and every of those (including the
abandoned ones) and make the updates into each distribution? It just
won't work. Be realistic.
Krzysztof
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Thu Jan 24 16:15:03 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 24 2008 - 16:15:03 EET