linuxaudio.org

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Patrick Shirkey

 wrote:
> Nedko has chosen to work with dbus and has provided a very flexible

quoted text
> system built on that decision. However his approach is not acceptable

> for all use cases. Afaict there is very little interest from parties

> that disagree with the dbus approach to enhance the LADI toolset in a

> way that makes it more flexible for their use and vision.

I don't really care at all about the technology inside a Linux session

handling "toolkit", although clearly it would be nicer if it worked on

all Linux systems. What I care about is the complete lack of any

stable API that a developer of an application that would participate

in this could use and have some confidence in. Do I believe that using

dbus as an IPC mechanism makes sense in this case, and that therefore

"the API" is really just a set of dbus names and semantics? Well, i'm

agnostic about that (my doubt comes from the fact that the

participants are all already connected via an existing IPC mechanism

that is guaranteed to be running; its called JACK), but in the end it

does not matter much to me - what matters more is that the work to

integrate an application into the system can be done, and stay done.

My impression of LASH and its cousins is that this simply hasn't

happened yet.

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

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