Nedko Arnaudov wrote:
> Stéphane Letz <letz@grame.fr> writes:
>
>
>> First we have to get a consensus on this "runtime choice of auto-start
>> strategy", then we'll have to find the best way to implement it.
>>
>
> I was against mixed jack1/jack2 and i'm against the runtime choice
> now. IMHO it complicates things for user instead of simplifying it.
> It also complicates codebase and I think we can spend our efforts with
> something else instead. Still, if someone has the motivation to do
> runtime choice of auto-strategy - fine, i can live with it. The only
> important thing is that with jackdbus the default strategy must be
> autostarting through dbus. If it is not, by default jackdbus control apps
> will not work with jackdbus. Such setup will be pretty useless, eh?
>
>
You will be isolating a whole lot of existing users by forcing a new
paradigm on them before they are ready. Just look at Facebook for a good
example of how this doesn't work.
I think jack devs have to put the effort into making the transition to a
more flexible system as subtle as possible rather than smacking people
round the head with it.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Jack-Devel mailing list
> Jack-Devel@lists.jackaudio.org
> http://lists.jackaudio.org/listinfo.cgi/jack-devel-jackaudio.org
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Tue May 19 16:15:06 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 19 2009 - 16:15:06 EEST