Subject: Re: [LAD] Summercode 2008: LASH, pt. 3

From: Bob Ham <rah@...> · Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2008 - 3:56 pm

On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 09:32 +0100, Arnold Krille wrote:

quoted text> Am Montag, 4. Februar 2008 schrieb Bob Ham:

> > On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 18:18 +0200, Juuso Alasuutari wrote:

> > > Fons Adriaensen wrote:

> > > > I fail the see the advantage of D-Bus over e.g. OSC via UDP or TCP.

> > > The core issue is abstracting the interfaces involved. As long as it

> > > serves to free LASH from being a libjack client

> > Why is freeing LASH from being a libjack client a goal?

>

> If you want 'real' session management, you also want to save the jack-settings

> per session.
This was addressed elsewhere.  The issue is the dynamicity of JACK.

Rewriting LASH to use D-Bus because you don't want to fix JACK is

lunacy.
Bob
--

Bob Ham 
_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev