On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 09:32 +0100, Arnold Krille wrote: > Am Montag, 4. Februar 2008 schrieb Bob Ham: > > On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 18:18 +0200, Juuso Alasuutari wrote: > > > Fons Adriaensen wrote: > > > > I fail the see the advantage of D-Bus over e.g. OSC via UDP or TCP. > > > The core issue is abstracting the interfaces involved. As long as it > > > serves to free LASH from being a libjack client > > Why is freeing LASH from being a libjack client a goal? > > If you want 'real' session management, you also want to save the > jack-settings > per session.
This was addressed elsewhere. The issue is the dynamicity of JACK. Rewriting LASH to use D-Bus because you don't want to fix JACK is lunacy. Bob -- Bob Ham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
