Re: [LAD] NSM - handling large files

On 04/04/2012 03:55 PM, rosea.grammostola wrote:
> On 04/04/2012 04:39 PM, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
>>>
>>> Another question. If you compare NSM level 0 (!) with JackSession. Which
>>> session manager do you prefer and why?
>>>
>>
>> well, NSM level 0 adds nothing to what JSM already delivers. sorry for
>> the noise :)
>>
>> the once self-called "uber-procrastinator" says: prefer what is already
>> there and "de-facto" working.
>
> Your opinion is clear, but your arguments are not strictly correct I think.
> You say that a hypothetical NSM level 0, adds nothing to what JS
> delivers, but that's not true.
>
> When I want to save a session in JS, I have to make a new folder. If I
> want to save a slightly changed session, I have to make a new folder or
> choose a existent folder. If I do the latter, the gui ask me if I really
> want to overwrite it. I choose 'yes'. (This is what you could call
> pretty cumbersome). In one case, someone did choose the /home/user
> folder... and lost all his data. Ok, you've versioning now in
> qjackctl... There is no way in Qjackctl to add apps without JS support
> to the session. It is not possible to quit a session without saving it,
> so I have to close every application manually.
>
> In NSM on the other hand. I make a new session, add and remove apps on
> the fly from a nice centralized and quick GUI interface. It's even easy
> to add apps without NSM support (or scripts) via the GUI. If I change a
> session, I'm just able to save it without making a new folder or
> overwrite it. I am able to close a whole session and to abort a whole
> session (without saving). As a user can expect, all apps in the session
> close. Moreover it's possible to duplicate a session as a manner of
> using templates. It's very easy and fast to change between sessions. I
> am able to use session over the network very easily. I have never the
> risk of overwriting my precious data. I' m able to add applications
> without JACK support to NSM (Frescobaldi notation-editor, Emacs with
> SuperCollder etc.).
>
> If you say that NSM adds nothing then a) you didn't try it and don't
> really know where you're talking about or b) don't think that the NSM
> stuff mentioned above are valuable of any kind for a user.
>

i may have missed it, but those application clients which are NOT coded
as compliant to a session protocol are not the point--that's just a SM
implementation convenience outside of the bounds of the "ideal-SM"
discussion

i'll refresh your memory that pyjacksm (a JSM reference implementation)
does that too (something called exo-clients or wtf:). ladish have been
doing that also and way, way before, for ages now o.O

unfortunately, i reckon, qjackctl doesn't. on my own call it has been
pure&strict to the JS business (aka. protocol) and nothing more.

however, re. exo-/infra-clients (or w/e they've been called, i don't
quite remember exactly but those are about clients which are
non-jack-session-aware) are in the drawer ntl.

actually, i was minding about the *intrinsic* cost/benefits of the
session protocol and *not* about *any* particular *session management*
(SM) implementation

got that?

-- 
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc@email-addr-hidden
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev