linuxaudio.org

On 03.04.2012 06:49, Joel Roth wrote:

quoted text
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 03:44:17PM +0200, Emanuel Rumpf wrote:

>

>> Back to life - back to reality

>>

>> 1. We start qtractor as part of a session, create some midi-tracks,

>> include some external wav-files.

>>

>> Should the SM "know" about these external files, as I suggested ?

>> (Allowing the user to find out basic info about it. )

>> Or leave it completely to qtractor ?

>

>

quoted text
> As I understand it, the primary motivation for a session

> manager is to be able to save and restore the state of an

> audio project[1] that consists of multiple interconnected

> programs running on a multiprocessing Linux system.

>

> In other words, the minimum capability sufficient to be

> useful would be some sort of checkpointing mechanism.

>

> A secondary goal, discussed extensively here, is that it

> would be nice to be able to copy a session or export a

> session. This is where all the contentious issues with

> handling filesystem objects comes up.

>

> The latter goal should be optional, IMO, rather than required.

>

this is exactly what i've been trying to tell (only that my english

wording leaves a lot to be desired)
thanks Joel :)
the primary goal is already achieved by qtractor on jack-session and

ladish; the second goal is the one i called "utopian".
speaking from a developer's pov. i find it very unlikely that NSM will

ever get broader acceptance than jack-session and/or ladish, given the

"utopian" restrictions it poses on client application design.
i wonder for a while: modifying an application to participate in

jack-session, for instance, is dead simple and costs only a small amount

of developer time and effort, provided he/she has the proper motivation

;)
otoh. i have this creepy feeling that, to comply to NSM, one has to

compromise a lot of the application design and behavior--gui

restrictions, file location restrictions, osc managing interface, to

name a few--not that they are bad ideas at all, quite the contrary, but

they impose a kind of non-negligible (pun intended;) change into

application workings, unless coded to comply to the NSM-client-logo from

day zero.
i keep wondering: if that ever flies above its toes then i'll certainly

call it "The linux-audio revolution" (or miracle, scnr:)
cheers

--

rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev