Re: [LAD] LADI

On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 11:45 +0100, rosea grammostola wrote:

> Anyway, to get a more clear picture of the situation, I think it's good
> to know what the opinions are from the (former) LASH maintainers. So
>
> @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?

The strong points are very pragmatic; Nedko is actually making commits
and working on things. Which means he's likely to produce something
usable and fitting some requirements. "History is made by those who
turn up."

The huge, major weak point that would prevent me from investing myself
in LADI is the use of D-Bus which requires an extra, external layer in
order to perform routing between objects on different buses. See my
previous mail on the subject here:

  http://lalists.stanford.edu/lad/2009/11/0350.html

>From what Nedko has said on IRC, I believe LADISH has such a layer.

> 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)?

I believe a good session handler will require some very good network
protocol definitions. From what Fons has said, he may be into this so I
would say Fons should publish his protocol. Assuming people can focus
on constructive criticism rather than politics or flamage, this would no
doubt be productive.

> 3) Are you willing to contribute to an solution and how do you see this
> (own project / collaboration with other projects etc.).

Willing but not really able (unless someone is wants to pony up some
cash to replace the income from my job; I can't see that happening
though.) Considerations about the mode of contribution are therefore
moot.

-- 
Bob Ham <rah@email-addr-hidden>
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev