Re: [LAD] LADI

Bob Ham wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 16:53 +0100, Adrian Knoth wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 08:53:02AM +0000, Bob Ham wrote:
>>
>>
>>> local sessions are a subset of the functionality provided by network
>>> sessions
>>>
>> If you want to have network transparency inside the audio framework,
>> this perspective might be true.
>>
>
> I do want that.
I have read this thread with interest, all though I lack the knowledge
to have an opinion about the technical choices.

To me it seems that there is some kind of agreement that dbus is not the
most ideal thing to use.
Also if I understand it well, Nedko has chosen dbus because it's the
best solution which is available now. Plus he really needs a session
handler... so he's taking some kind of practical approach here.

Roughly I think I can make three groups after reading this thread:

1) The 'one app with plugins' group. People who are focusing on one big
app, extended by plugins (Ardour, Qtractor, LV2/DSSI). This group
doesn't have much interest in a session handler.

2) The people who likes to work with different, small Jack applications
(ams, aeolus, epichord etc.). These people are interested in a session
handler. But they think dbus is the wrong approach, it is to limited for
them, or it is not the right thing for the Linux platform in their opinion.

3) Group 3 is the same as group 2, BUT they have chosen dbus as
solution. It's the LADI group.

I don't think we can expect the members of group 1 to build a session
handler for us. They are not interested enough in a session handler.

We can expect that group 3 will build a session handler for us. LADI is
in active development and they already made some progress.

Now I'm wondering, what can we expect from group 2?

\r
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sun Dec 20 00:15:03 2009