On Thursday 24 January 2008 12:25:15 Krzysztof Foltman wrote:
> Bob Ham wrote:
> > 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.
I volunteer for updating existing programs once a new and improved LASH API is
out the door! :)
I do also feel that the API could be much better. But at the same time I don't
think we should start by rewriting it. One step at a time...
Juuso
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Fri Jan 25 16:15:03 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jan 25 2008 - 16:15:04 EET