On Saturday 31 October 2009 19:38:26 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
> On 11/01/2009 10:16 AM, fons@email-addr-hidden wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 11:04:12PM +0000, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
> >> my bad. that particular qjackctl -X command line option was in fact
> >> suggested by me but, well, just didn't make through implementation ;).
> >
> > The option in the setup dialog creates a chicken/egg situation.
> > If the 'single instance' restriction is active you don't even
> > get a chance to change it. Unless you are so extremely clever
> > to realise that in order to enable a qjackctl instance on a
> > remote machine you first have to modify the configuration of
> > the local one. It makes sense, yes, lots of.
> >
> > Just like some other things in qjackctl's setup.
> > If I want to change where qjackctl's main window will
> > appear on the desktop, I have to
> >
> > - Move it to the required place.
> > - Open the setup dialog.
> > - Make some unwanted change.
> > - Undo that unwanted change.
> > - Click 'Save', which without the two previous actions
> > remains disabled. Why is it disabled ?
> >
> > And still I've not seen any rationale for ever enforcing
> > a single qjackctl on any X server.
>
> I guess it's because currently the change state is held in memory
> whereas allowing multiple instances will not provide a way to update the
> change state without a significant modification to the existing code?
Well, when I run one on my local machine, I want any changed configs to be
stored for the local setup. When I run one remotely through an ssh tunnel
say, I want any changed configs to be stored for the remote setup. (I think.
Does that make sense?)
>
>
>
> Patrick Shirkey
> Boost Hardware Ltd
all the best,
drew
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Sun Nov 1 08:15:02 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Nov 01 2009 - 08:15:02 EET