I have read this thread with interest, all though I lack the knowledge
Bob Ham wrote:
To me it seems that there is some kind of agreement that dbus is not the
most ideal thing to use.
Also if I understand it well, Nedko has chosen dbus because it's the
best solution which is available now. Plus he really needs a session
handler... so he's taking some kind of practical approach here.
Roughly I think I can make three groups after reading this thread:
1) The 'one app with plugins' group. People who are focusing on one big
app, extended by plugins (Ardour, Qtractor, LV2/DSSI). This group
doesn't have much interest in a session handler.
2) The people who likes to work with different, small Jack applications
(ams, aeolus, epichord etc.). These people are interested in a session
handler. But they think dbus is the wrong approach, it is to limited for
them, or it is not the right thing for the Linux platform in their opinion.
3) Group 3 is the same as group 2, BUT they have chosen dbus as
solution. It's the LADI group.
I don't think we can expect the members of group 1 to build a session
handler for us. They are not interested enough in a session handler.
We can expect that group 3 will build a session handler for us. LADI is
in active development and they already made some progress.
Now I'm wondering, what can we expect from group 2?
Linux-audio-dev mailing list