Re: [LAD] LADI

David Robillard wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 11:45 +0100, rosea grammostola wrote:
> [...]
>
>> @Bob Ham, David Robillard and Juuso Alasuutari,
>>
>> Can you describe in your own words:
>>
>>
>> 1) What are the strong and weak points of LADI in your opinion and why?
>>
>> 2) What will be a good approach now for getting a Linux audio session
>> handler in your opinion
>> (taking also LASH/LADI/Jack Session and Fons ideas in account)?
>>
>> 3) Are you willing to contribute to an solution and how do you see this
>> (own project / collaboration with other projects etc.).
>>
>
> Short and to the point, SIMPLE (to implement), low or no dependencies,
> actually existent, portable.
@David, thanks for your reply.

"Portable to other platforms", can you explain why that is important for
you?

> Interface is by a very wide margin the
> most important thing.
>
> Which of the present approaches best meets these goals should be
> obvious; you tell me.
It's sounds to me more like the 'jack session approach' then the 'LADI
approach', right?

> I will probably end up creating something like the aforementioned header
> for use in plugins anyway, though.
Which workflow do you prefer?
One 'all-in-one-app' like Ardour with (LV2) plugins or the modular
approach of connecting different jack applications to each other, or both?

Regards,

\r

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Tue Dec 22 20:15:06 2009