>doesn't anyone agree that a better and simpler api might make a >/dev/sequencer unneeded and would possible provide better timing?
everybody does. its why the ALSA sequencer API was written. >not as flexible as having the sequencing done in the >application. it's nice for a midi player, but is it fexible enough >for a complicated midi multi track sequencer? it works for MusE which is the most impressive multitrack MIDI sequencer we have for Linux. >i just think that the alsa rawmidi driver api is a little too low >level and the sequencer too high level. i think it could be replaced >by a single api that is slightly higher level than rawmidi. i think you need to get to know the sequencer API better. it looks very complex but it can be used to provide pretty much whatever level of sophistication you want. >> >- a function to send midi events with a timestamp, the driver transmits >> >the event at the specified time. events have to be sent in the correct >> >order. >> >> check. ALSA does this, and doesn't require that events are sent in the >> correct order. > >that's what makes it too complicated. ordering the events can be better done >in the application. i said it didn't *require* it. you can happily order them all yourself, and deliver them en-masse. why choose one over the other? the sequencer *has* to do ordering, because it may have events coming from different sources but with the same destination. perhaps you didn't understand that point. >ok, where can i find the latest documentation for the alsa sequencer and >midi api? hah. therein lies a problem. there isn't much other than the comments from the source code ripped out by doxygen. however, do check them out. http://www.alsa-project.com/, and you should join alsa-devel and talk to takashi to make sure you fully understand the ALSA sequencer before commenting too much on what you think it does and does not do well. --p
