On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:47:26 -0500
Paul Davis <paul@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Johannes Kroll <jkroll@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>
> >
> > Could you elaborate please: why is compatibility between the existing
> > session management systems a dumb idea?
>
>
> you don't compatibility between DECnet and BITNET. you don't get
> compatibility between english and chinese. what you get is a *new*
> system/protocol/language.
>
> <ob-xkcd>
> http://xkcd.com/927/
> </ob-xkcd>
You and David do not understand what I'm proposing. My intention is not
to create a new protocol. Creating another system because there are
already too many would be indeed idiotic: that's what has been done
before with the other session managers. I imagine creating *something*
that makes the existing systems work together, *without* changing the
clients that use the existing systems.
I.e. one app may be thinking it's talking to non-session, one app
speaks ladish, another thinks it's talking to jack-session, but in
reality they all talk to one session manager which implements all 3
(4... 7... umpteen) protocols.
I have not looked at the implementations of the existing systems. Maybe
what I'm proposing is not easily possible. In any case, I want you to
understand that I'm not proposing to increase the number of systems in
order to decrease the number of systems. That would be, indeed, dumb in
a painfully obvious way.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sun Feb 24 04:15:03 2013
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 24 2013 - 04:15:04 EET