В Tue, 22 May 2012 15:08:32 -0400 Paul Davis <[email protected]> пишет:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Nikita Zlobin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi all. Just returned from military services (mandatory period). > > It is likely, that i was somehow unsubscribed from list. > > > > In summary, proposed changes are joined in two parts: > > 1. A few advances for freewheel mode: waiting wheel and per client > > free/waiting wheel mode. > > 2. Get support for any count of "rooms", as they are called in > > LADISH therminology, but IMHO, a bit more flexible. > > > > I'm sorry but I don't agree with any of these ideas. > > One of the guiding design philosophies behind JACK's design has been > to avoid trying to create an API that covers every possible use case, > including all the obscure ones. We have seen several examples of this > (the most notable being SGI's graphics API) which provide the general > lesson that adding complexity in order to be able to satisfy the > least common 10% of use cases invariably causes unnecessary > complexity for the common 80%. > > If you want a "room" like concept then please work on providing > per-port metadata (I can post a header that describes a proposed > API), because I believe that this will provide everything necessary > to do this without JACK's involvement. This is an important addition > to the API, and will facilitate many things that are useful and > moderately common. What things, you think, may need to create such all-purpose API? As for rooms - it is just a side effect of what i propose. JACK api doesn't need to be changed; way to select jack instance by client may be same as today. I'm not sure even, that you read message up to end - including proposed structure. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
