Re: [LAD] Interoperability between session management systems

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Johannes Kroll <jkroll@email-addr-hidden> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
All of the existing session management protocols have inherent limitations
which I was attempting to avoid by creating NSM. Nedko and I have discussed
including NSM protocol support in LADISH, which would be kind of like what
you're talking about, but the problem remains that the whole would be a
lowest-common-denominator of functionality. Now, if jack session and LASH
and LADISH level 1 applications eventually fade out and move to the NSM
protocol, then maybe that's OK. But in the meantime it's not going to be as
functional as using pure NSM.

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sun Feb 24 04:15:04 2013