Why not both?
Use either/or compile options:
The bit you forgot to mention is the lack of network session
capability using your dbus method. It's still not suitable for
However Bob Ham, in an earlier post, explained this far better than i
could, so reading up will bear fruit. He also eloquently highlighted
the rapidly ensuing complexity of having to run multiple dbusses in
some fashion to counter the limitations dbus has in providing cluster
Far too complex, imho, compared to the simplicity, and minimal impact,
jacksession has on the API. Torben has already proved this
emphatically, imho, and as a user tester i found it SIMPLE and easy to
use. Surely a criteria for any developer to consider.
Add to that the ease at which he sessionised apps, with a few lines of
code, compared with the wholesale reconstruction required by lash, for
instance, and he makes a powerful and compelling case for jacksession
as a modest additional component in the API. (imho)
Jacksession, as a component, was accused of being insufficient,
therefore dismissed out of hand, for being "80%". The situation is no
better with a dbus version, and likely other constructs too.
So lets compare apples with apples here, if only for fair assessment.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Nedko Arnaudov wrote:
Linux-audio-dev mailing list