Nedko Arnaudov wrote: > Stéphane Letz <[email protected]> writes: > > >> First we have to get a consensus on this "runtime choice of auto-start >> strategy", then we'll have to find the best way to implement it. >> > > I was against mixed jack1/jack2 and i'm against the runtime choice > now. IMHO it complicates things for user instead of simplifying it. > It also complicates codebase and I think we can spend our efforts with > something else instead. Still, if someone has the motivation to do > runtime choice of auto-strategy - fine, i can live with it. The only > important thing is that with jackdbus the default strategy must be > autostarting through dbus. If it is not, by default jackdbus control apps > will not work with jackdbus. Such setup will be pretty useless, eh? > >
You will be isolating a whole lot of existing users by forcing a new paradigm on them before they are ready. Just look at Facebook for a good example of how this doesn't work. I think jack devs have to put the effort into making the transition to a more flexible system as subtle as possible rather than smacking people round the head with it. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Jack-Devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.jackaudio.org/listinfo.cgi/jack-devel-jackaudio.org > _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
