On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 18:31 +0200, Renato wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:35:26 +0200 > thijs van severen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2012/3/28 Emanuel Rumpf <[email protected]> > > > > > Am 28. März 2012 05:46 schrieb David Robillard <[email protected]>: > > > > On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 03:27 +0200, Emanuel Rumpf wrote: > > > >> This allowed the SM to: > > > >> > > > >> - tell the user if a certain file is part of any session > > > >> registered at > > > the SM [...] > if I may add my voice, from a very practical user point of view, > I agree with thijs. The functionality Emanuel is proposing does sound > very interesting, and it *would* be very nice to have
The mentioned functionality does not depend on a centralized file store. That's the point I'm trying to make, it's not "complexity that wins us a bunch of nice features", it's just complexity. At most what is required for some of them is the session manager know about registered /sessions/. This is a dramatically different thing than building a prison for all /files/. While not bulletproof (you could have sessions on a removable drive), it's not really a problem because it doesn't impose anything on apps. > I.e. I would > gladly give up some disk space, at least for the present, to have a > solid, functional and wide adopted session manager (like Non seems to > be, except for the last requirement). > > Of course those having recordings of several gigabytes won't agree with > me, but again this is just my personal opinion. Lack of a centralized file store does not mean large files would be duplicated. -dr _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
