Re: [LAD] LADI

Hi Bob,

thanks for commenting on LADI stuff

> 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.

D-Bus *can* span over multiple hosts. I've sent mail to this mailing
list that explains how to do it and what needs to be improved:

http://lalists.stanford.edu/lau/2009/11/0043.html

see also:

http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/DBusRemote (probably somewhat
obsolete, check the timestamp and the missing link to gabriel site).

I've adopted the gabriel project because it is possible to improve it as
a mean to achieve multihost LADI studios in future:

http://gabriel.sourceforge.net/

That said, there is no guarantee that ladish will use D-Bus for
communication between daemon and apps. LASH got this mainly because of
Juuso Alasuutari and because it was subject of his Summercode
project. My aim with "D-Bus + LASH" was to use D-Bus for lashd <-> jack
comunication and for lashd <-> control app communication. I agreed on
using D-Bus for app <-> lashd communication because that simplified
(yes it did) the LASH codebase. The use of D-Bus for app <-> ladishd IPC
was risky and it took some time to fix bugs, but at the end we made it
to work acceptably well.

Also, there is no guarantee that ladish will use D-Bus for remote IPC.
I have rough plan how to use D-Bus for multihost studios, but there is
lot of work to do until 1.0 is reached. After 1.0 is reached, I will
reconsider available options for the multihost capable ladish (that
will be 2.0), I will decide and I'll provide finer milestones to
acomplish this goal, in the same way as I did for 1.0.

In summary, I plan to use D-Bus at least until ladish-1.0 is
relased. I've seen lot of arguments against D-Bus and so far I din't
find them valid for the goals I'm working for. If D-Bus gets proven as
wrong choice for single hosts studio before the release of 1.0, I'll
have to change it early. However I find such incident highly
non-probable. Chances for remote D-Bus being not suitable are slightly
higher and I'll reconsider D-Bus after ladish-1.0 release. Until then,
D-Bus is the IPC technology that allows me to implement LADI features in
fastest possible way and does not look as something that I'll abandon
soon.

This mail is not intended to be offensive to anyone. If someone dislikes
D-Bus for one reason or another it is his right.

I'm always open for constructive discussions, especially if they are in
the scope of the LADI project. I'm open and glad for the feedback of
early jackdbus and ladish adopters.

-- 
Nedko Arnaudov <GnuPG KeyID: DE1716B0>

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