On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 04:19:03PM +0100, rosea.grammostola wrote:
> More devs with an opinion? Fons, Torben, Paul, Emanual, ... ?
I haven't used it so far (that is just a matter of limited
time and priorities). But on reading the available docs my
first impression is that there is some serious thinking
behind this. There are quite a few features/choices that
I do like/agree with.
1. The use of OSC, defining only the messages and leaving
the actual implementation of the OSC interfaces to the
application author. This instead of the all too common
practice of imposing the use of some library that would
integrate badly with the existing framework of an app,
duplicate existing functionality or be in conflict with
it, or pull in unwanted dependencies.
2. The use of jackpatch to manage jack connections instead
of interfering with Jack itself. It's not clear from the
specs, but if this means that NSM will (or can be told
to) leave Jack completely alone I'll like it even more.
3. Clearly defining the way an app should behave w.r.t. its
File menu entries (when managed). This is quite intrusive
to existing clients, but it is IMHO absolutley essential.
Kudos to the designer(s) for the having the courage to do
this instead of allowing application developers to take
the 'least effort' way (which would of course be better
marketing, but invite later misery).
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
Linux-audio-dev mailing list