> >> correct. i know you love EASI > > > >is it that obvious? :) > > > >perhaps if more people like it, it would make sense porting > >it to linux... > > much less sense than porting ASIO, i'm afraid. there are very few > programs for win/macos that use EASI, but lots that use ASIO, and an > ASIO layer would make porting the audio side of such programs much > easier. > > personally, i don't like either of them very much, which is partly why > i wrote JACK.
ok. you are now using: ALSA kernel -> ALSA lib -> JACK. that's not too different from: kernel driver -> EASI or ASIO plugin -> JACK i think the difference between ALSA and EASI/ASIO is that the latter have device dependant code in both user space and kernel. i think this is a cleaner solution. i have not yet looked into ASIO much, but perhaps porting it would make sense also. both EASI and ASIO plugins could use the same low level kernel driver. is there a reason why this has not been done. licensing perhaps? do you agree that having a device specific user space plugin has advantages over a generic kernel driver interface? --martijn _______________________________________________________________ Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
