At Wed, 07 Jan 2004 13:45:05 +0100, Abramo Bagnara wrote:
Takashi Iwai wrote:
as written in my previous mail, it was a quick hack. and there is a better approach.
I'd prefer the following approach:
pcmp.duplex { type dmix ... }
pcmc.duplex { type dsnoop ... }
with the following policy: - if capture is specified pcmc and pcm are searched in this order - if playback is specified pcmp and pcm are searched in this order
this was my first idea, too.
but i'm afraid that it will lead to more conditionals (i.e. more codes) over all plugins with a slave pcm, and make the syntax more complicated.
I don't see your point, can you show me an example of what you mean?
AFAICS the only code that need to be changed is the PCM definition lookup.
-- Abramo Bagnara mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opera Unica Phone: +39.0546.656023 Via Emilia Interna, 140 48014 Castel Bolognese (RA) - Italy
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
