Paul Davis writes: > >And it surely wouldn't be bad for clients not to rely a a particular size > >callback. I don't know how CoreAudio handles this. I'm sure EASI did > >not have constant size callbacks and VST does not either IIRC. (ASIO > >probably does, but ASIO also forces double buffering (I think)...). > > until recently, JACK provided support for variable numbers of frames > in the process() callback. it was removed because no developer was in > support of it, and because JACK itself had no use for it. > > i am quite open to re-examining the issue. however, i don't want > inefficient software designs to be forced on us by the stupid use of > USB to handle audio. i've had enough of bad hardware designs messing > up software, and it won't happen here. if it can be done sensibly, we > can do it.
I'm a newbie to LAD, but I have some years of experience of developing and using a system similar to JACK for routing blocks of samples to DSP modules of a digital satellite control receiver and transmitter system running on Solaris (we are talking about some megasamples per second here). IMHO, the only sensible way for a system like JACK to operate is by using a constant blocksize. Anyway, if you have several HW interfaces each using their own blocksize or interrupt frequency then this is the only sane option. If this means an extra buffering layer, then so be it. That's the price you pay for sloppy HW design. Just my 0.02 EUR. BTW, can JACK handle several HW interface using different blocksizes at a time (assuming sample frequencies are coherent) ? -- Fons Adriaensen ALCATEL SPACE
