On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 7:43 AM, Fons Adriaensen <[email protected]> wrote: > JSM is one of them, it's a mess > even in its initial form.
its important to point out that this is a criticism that could be levelled at JACK too. your analysis was thoughtful and sensible. as it turned out, neither torben nor I agreed with it. as it stands, the JACK Session API is a minimal, barely intrusive addition that gets done 90%+ of what the users of JACK wanted/needed. the design goals behind JACK have always included a strong aversion to going after the 100% solution because I and others have strong feelings about the infeasibility of it in general, mostly because of a profound awareness of the total SNAFUs that seem to happen everytime somebody tries this in software. so no, it doesn't do everything possible, or everything desirable, or everything perfectly, but it does do most of what people actually need, without having much impact on developers' own internal architecture. the lack of quit-without-save is a decision that i was opposed to, but accepted precisely because it has the potential to interfere with developer's internal architecture. most applications these days ask if you attempt to quit without saving (some will even treat the window manager close button as a trigger for this). quit-without-save (potentially) requires a new code path that circumvents whatever internal logic the program has to decide whether to ask the user. its not a huge change, but it is a change that isn't merely additive (as is the case for the rest of the API). in the interest of seeing something adopted that performs a useful role for users, it seemed better not to require supporting JACK Session to also require "your program must be able to quit without any user interaction". _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
