Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I've been playing and recording with it, and I don't see more basic > problems now. It could be useful to merge with HEAD to have more > people testing and proposing enhancements.
Well, then I might as well do that. > * Why not to have another output port dedicated to the metronome ? Could do. One complication is that at the moment the metronome is per-device, that is, each MIDI device object contains a description of the metronome channel, pitches, etc, and RG sends to "the metronome for a device". So there is connection state inherent in the metronome already, and that connection is associated with an existing device (i.e. an existing ALSA output port) -- it's not just a single conceptual metronome output or a separate metronome device. If I remember correctly, anyway -- we've changed the metronome implementation before. The current metronome is already a bit troublesome for the purpose of adding audio/plugin metronomes, which is (I think) a more desirable feature -- perhaps both could be addressed at once. > * And what about the synchronization and MIDI Real Time output > messages going by another dedicated output port ? That would be simpler. Is it worth it from a usability point of view? > * The MTC sync branch can also create a new input port for incoming > synchronization signals. Likewise. > * Are we ready for LASH / LADCCA, now ? Could be subtleties arising from the fact that our existing connection management gets first refusal still. I have a bit of a conceptual problem with the way the full extent of LASH is intended to work -- I argued at some length with Bob Ham about this once, I don't think it's a very good fit for Rosegarden and the way applications like it might be used (I can explain that if you like), which means I'm not particularly keen on a full-blown LASH implementation in Rosegarden, although I have nothing against basic connection save/restore. Either way this would not be something I would have the time to work on myself at the moment. > * Is there any tool out there for connection management taking into > account the port renaming feature? Dave Robillard's Patchage is the closest I know. It's a nice and (since a new release last week) usable modular-style patch manager. Like qjackctl it won't pick up port name changes automatically, but unlike qjackctl it will notice them when you ask it to refresh. I'm sure Rui would be happy to take requests or patches for qjackctl. Chris ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games. Get your fingers limbered up and give it your best shot. 4 great events, 4 opportunities to win big! Highest score wins.NEC IT Guy Games. Play to win an NEC 61 plasma display. Visit http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20 _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
