On 12/22/2009 12:39 AM, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
So you agree with Fon's statement that if the jack_session code is
accepted you would not want to use jack1 any longer and would support a
fork or stop using it completely and create your own realtime audio daemon?
While Fons is thorough with his criticism which is to be respected as it
helps to refine the knowledge base and code, that should not mean that
the option of having jack_session available for the rest of us to use is
completely off the table. We just need to be aware of the limitations.
I must have missed the part of the debate where it was agreed or even
defined that jack_session would not be able to play nicely with more
advanced managers. In fact Nedko even offered his support/interest for
making LADI work with jack_session. Being that LADI is real and publicly
released that should hold more weight than Fon's views on the matter.
As far as I can tell the design process broke down mostly because one
person made a strong case for not having any other form of session
management except the one that he is working on (and is now saying he is
not interested in releasing publicly) and consequently wound the other
parties up to the point where they decided it was too frustrating or
stressful to discuss it any further at that point.
Boost Hardware Ltd
Linux-audio-dev mailing list