David Robillard wrote: > On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 11:45 +0100, rosea grammostola wrote: > [...] > >> @Bob Ham, David Robillard and Juuso Alasuutari, >> >> Can you describe in your own words: >> >> >> 1) What are the strong and weak points of LADI in your opinion and why? >> >> 2) What will be a good approach now for getting a Linux audio session >> handler in your opinion >> (taking also LASH/LADI/Jack Session and Fons ideas in account)? >> >> 3) Are you willing to contribute to an solution and how do you see this >> (own project / collaboration with other projects etc.). >> > > Short and to the point, SIMPLE (to implement), low or no dependencies, > actually existent, portable. @David, thanks for your reply.
"Portable to other platforms", can you explain why that is important for you? > Interface is by a very wide margin the > most important thing. > > Which of the present approaches best meets these goals should be > obvious; you tell me. It's sounds to me more like the 'jack session approach' then the 'LADI approach', right? > I will probably end up creating something like the aforementioned header > for use in plugins anyway, though. Which workflow do you prefer? One 'all-in-one-app' like Ardour with (LV2) plugins or the modular approach of connecting different jack applications to each other, or both? Regards, \r _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
