Re: [LAD] Summercode 2008: LASH, pt. 3

Bob Ham wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 18:18 +0200, Juuso Alasuutari wrote:
>> Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>>> I fail the see the advantage of D-Bus over e.g. OSC via UDP or TCP.
>
>> The core issue is abstracting the interfaces involved. As long as it
>> serves to free LASH from being a libjack client
>
> Why is freeing LASH from being a libjack client a goal?

I apologise for the sloppy language I used. I should've specified that
with 'libjack' I'm referring to what libjack is at the present moment.
In my opinion, LASH shouldn't communicate with JACK using the "normal"
client lib. It goes against the concept (LASH is special; it's not your
generic audio application), and it has its limitations.

Some of the issues with the current libjack API are lack of engine and
driver parameter controls, lack of control for stopping, starting, and
auto-launching JACK, and the practical requirement that a port
connection frontend be RT capable. (I've understood that the last one
doesn't apply to libjackmp, though.)

Most of these would be solved by a control interface to JACK, which is
something that LASH should use. It could be a D-Bus interface that's
built into JACK or, preferably, the control interface could be a
separate library/API provided by JACK. This API could then be used to
implement a D-Bus interface, an OSC interface, and LASH could use it
directly.

I'm starting to get a feeling that what I just said isn't all that new.
Of course it's not my idea -- it's been talked about on #lad many times
already -- but doesn't it resemble something that you suggested at some
point earlier on, Bob? (What goes around, comes around.)

Juuso
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Wed Feb 6 16:15:01 2008