On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Richard W.E. Furse wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > [...] > > It is certainly true that there is only one type of "exchange" currently > > written for JACK, and that is for low-latency PCM. This does not mean that > > the API is not suitable for other types of connections, though. I think > > the beauty of the JACK API is that the clients have so few > > responsibilities, which actually makes it easier to provide different > > backends. I would certainly be interested in some specific cases that you > > think cannot be handled by the JACK api - as Paul said, now is a good time > > to talk about these issues. > > > > Karl > [....] > > Hmmm, LADMEA is written to be as short as possible with little/no > redundancy, possibly at the slight expense of performance. Which features do > you think LADMEA has that aren't necessary (other than the Codec spec which > is a bit of an appendix)? >
I don't quite understand what you are asking from the context of my mail. I was not addressing LADMEA at all, but rather asking for clarification about the complaints that you have about JACK. So it isn't clear to me why you are asking what I think is unnecessary in LADMEA. Karl > --Richard > --------------------- Karl W. MacMillan Computer Music Department Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University [EMAIL PROTECTED] mambo.peabody.jhu.edu/~karlmac
