On Thursday 24 January 2008 12:25:15 Krzysztof Foltman wrote: > Bob Ham wrote: > > I think it's important *to* break the current API due to its many > > issues. Why do you think that backwards compatibility with the current > > API is important? > > LASH adoption was slow enough to start with. Several projects exist that > use current LASH, some are quite useful (Hydrogen, Specimen), do you > want to personally update each and every of those (including the > abandoned ones) and make the updates into each distribution? It just > won't work. Be realistic.
I volunteer for updating existing programs once a new and improved LASH API is out the door! :) I do also feel that the API could be much better. But at the same time I don't think we should start by rewriting it. One step at a time... Juuso _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
