Re: [LAD] NSM - handling large files

On 04/04/2012 05:19 PM, J. Liles wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:22 AM, Rui Nuno Capela <rncbc@email-addr-hidden
> <mailto:rncbc@email-addr-hidden>> wrote:
>
> On 04/04/2012 12:18 PM, rosea.grammostola wrote:
>
> On 04/03/2012 07:04 PM, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
>
> now, i could suggest NSM API to be split in levels of
> compliance and
> restrictiveness, so to speak:
>
> - level 0 :- clients just store/retrieve their own private
> state from a
> supplied and independent session sub-directory; no GUI File menu
> restrictions; no file location restrictions, no symlinks, no
> juggling,
> no dupes, no sh*t.
>
> - level 1+ :- anything that (may progressively?) imposes
> each one the
> mentioned non-restrictions of level 0.
>
>
> How much more effort will it be in terms of coding, to implement
> 'level-1' versus 'level-0'?
>
>
> speaking from qtractor pov.:
>
> - level 0: minimal effort as it would be a probable and simple
> rephrasing and/or adaptation of the code already in place for
> jack-session; also, there's this osc branch somewhat lurking in svn
> to get readily merged and apply for the NSM/OSC interface.
>
> - level 1+: pervasive change and effort; almost brand new
> application overhaul (iow. won't happen any time soon:) sorry.
>
>
> Are you seriously saying that the equivalent of doing:
>
> if ( nsm_is_active )
> save_here( file );
> else
> save_there( file );
>

this is level 0, assuming "file" is the application private state file

> Would require a complete rewrite and overhaul of your application? Say
> you don't want to do it... That's fine. Say you don't like the NSM
> design--that's fine too. But don't just make up wild hyperbole out of
> laziness...
>

the rewrite is about level 1+ (my nomenclature, i know:)

cheers

-- 
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