Fons Adriaensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I fail the see the advantage of D-Bus over e.g. OSC via UDP or TCP. > Last time I looked at the lash sources, the protocol was really > just one small step away from OSC - it would have taken an hour > or two to do the conversion.
The advantage is D-Bus autolaunching of the "server" and better integration with "desktop". > Other consideration: any form of session management for the > systems I'm using would have to be at least a two-layer affair. > > There is a first layer of 'system' apss talking to jack and > creating a working environment - this is all monitoring and > rendering stuff. > > The second level is user sessions, also consisting of several > apps talking to jack. They *use* this existing environment but > should not be allowed to modify it. > > For anything like lash to be useful here it would need to support > this layering. This will be hard without proper integration with a desktop (window manager) session handler. Something very similar can be achieved using the "import subsessions" feature that I proposed earlier. I.e. have system session [auto]loaded and then import (without replace) of user session[s]. -- Nedko Arnaudov <GnuPG KeyID: DE1716B0>
pgpFiehZ0f5ZI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
