Re: [LAD] [Jack-Devel] jackd/jackdbus : D-Bus or not D-Bus...

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Jack devel <jack-devel@...>, Linux Audio Developers <linux-audio-dev@...>
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 - 10:37 am

On Tue, May 19, 2009 10:32, Stéphane Letz wrote:

qjackctl can already opt to not write any .jackdrc. ardour may vary. i
would assume it to use the jack control api in a near future. the same
would apply to qjackctl. then everybody will be happy again ;)

i was asking for a default strategy, call it "auto", which will try
"classic" first, then "d-bus", then whatever.

the main question, at least in my mind, is all about *which* settings will
be used to auto-start the server, isn't it? an explicit command line, as
in "classic", should *always* take precedence over the settings in any
internal configuration database, which i think the "d-bus" honors instead
and that latter behavior is being the root of all "d-bus" evil. scnrt ;)

cheers
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc@rncbc.org

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAD] jackd/jackdbus : D-Bus or not D-Bus..., Stéphane Letz, (Tue May 19, 8:42 am)
Re: [LAD] jackd/jackdbus : D-Bus or not D-Bus..., Christian Ohm, (Tue May 19, 1:44 pm)
Re: [LAD] jackd/jackdbus : D-Bus or not D-Bus..., drew Roberts, (Tue May 19, 11:55 am)
Re: [LAD] [Jack-Devel] jackd/jackdbus : D-Bus or not D-Bus..., Jens M Andreasen, (Tue May 19, 12:03 pm)
Re: [LAD] [Jack-Devel] jackd/jackdbus : D-Bus or not D-Bus..., Rui Nuno Capela, (Tue May 19, 10:37 am)