Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Nedko Arnaudov <nedko@...>
Cc: Linux Audio Developers <linux-audio-dev@...>
Date: Friday, January 8, 2010 - 1:03 pm

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Nedko Arnaudov wrote:

Well, I don't want to be a wet blanket, and please understand I'm
absolutely not trying to start a fight -- but my instinct is to say
"just don't do that". Sending an arbitrary signal to an application
that isn't expecting it doesn't seem like a great idea, and using a
signal for session save seems like a nasty hack already (apart from
anything else it's inviting people to attempt the actual save from the
signal handler).

The procedural difficulty I suppose is that you're trying to get
applications to take part in session management without having to get
their authors to change them significantly to do so. I can see why
that's attractive, but the SIGUSR1 method is still a code change -- it
still needs acceptance from developers, a new release of the
application, &c. Meanwhile, it makes things risky for people who want
to continue using applications that don't support it.

For my part (and I realise I'm probably inviting the wrath of Fons and
others here) I'd probably rather add some D-BUS or equivalent "proper"
message receipt to the application and be done with it. So long as
boilerplate code is readily available, that doesn't seem too painful.

The problem I have always had with most of the proposed LA session
handlers is not so much "doing the code" as "getting around to doing
the code", which basically means understanding what the code was
supposed to be in the first place -- and I suspect this problem is
commonplace, particularly for something like LASH which has always
seemed strangely demanding from the code point of view.

But, I have never tried using ladish and frankly the time taken to
write this message is probably about as much as I can afford at the
moment. If I don't properly understand its goals, I'm probably just
covering ground that you've already covered and reaching conclusions
you've already rejected, and I apologise for that.

(One idle thought is that any proper "desktop" application is going to
have to handle session save already, for the desktop session manager.
Can that be exploited?)

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

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

Messages in current thread:
[LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, rosea grammostola, (Mon Jan 4, 12:05 pm)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Chris Cannam, (Fri Jan 8, 9:35 am)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Rui Nuno Capela, (Fri Jan 8, 9:54 pm)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Nedko Arnaudov, (Fri Jan 8, 9:57 pm)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Nedko Arnaudov, (Fri Jan 8, 10:37 am)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Chris Cannam, (Fri Jan 8, 10:41 am)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Nedko Arnaudov, (Fri Jan 8, 11:01 am)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Chris Cannam, (Fri Jan 8, 11:09 am)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Nedko Arnaudov, (Fri Jan 8, 11:19 am)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Chris Cannam, (Fri Jan 8, 11:27 am)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Nedko Arnaudov, (Fri Jan 8, 11:51 am)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Chris Cannam, (Fri Jan 8, 12:01 pm)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Nedko Arnaudov, (Fri Jan 8, 12:07 pm)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Chris Cannam, (Fri Jan 8, 1:03 pm)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Nedko Arnaudov, (Fri Jan 8, 1:37 pm)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Chris Cannam, (Fri Jan 8, 1:46 pm)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, rosea grammostola, (Fri Jan 8, 12:27 pm)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Nedko Arnaudov, (Fri Jan 8, 12:32 pm)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, rosea grammostola, (Fri Jan 8, 12:57 pm)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, rosea grammostola, (Fri Jan 8, 9:31 am)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Fri Jan 8, 12:55 pm)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Nedko Arnaudov, (Fri Jan 8, 1:47 pm)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Fri Jan 8, 2:03 pm)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Chris Cannam, (Fri Jan 8, 1:50 pm)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Fri Jan 8, 2:06 pm)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Chris Cannam, (Fri Jan 8, 2:16 pm)
Re: [LAD] Session Handlers and 'level 1' support, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Fri Jan 8, 3:31 pm)