> On 01/08/12 "rosea.grammostola" wrote:
>> On 08/01/2012 11:53 AM, James Morris wrote:
> ..
>
>>>>> LASH failed despite 26 apps supporting it:
>>>>>
http://wiki.linuxaudio.org/apps/all/lash
>>>>
>>>> The problem with LASH is that it has obvious (technical) flaws.
>>>> Session managers today are much better. Imo NSM has a great
>>>> technical design, with advantages compared to other session api's
>>>> and without (essential) technical flaws.
>>>>
>>>> If you think that all the apps apps.linuxaudio.org will support a
>>>> session api, then you're not very realistic. That's why it's
>>>> essential that NSM support apps without NSM support and apps
>>>> without a state in a user friendly way.
>>>
>>> I guess. But for those who need to play around with stuff before they
>>> find what they can use to start being productive it's not good.
>>
>> I don't see what you mean. You've a list of apps with NSM support. You
>> can use those in the NSM session. Other apps you can launch via
>> nsm-proxy. If you want to use Ladish l1, look at the list of apps with
>> ladish l1 support.
>
> I would but linuxaudio.org seems to have gone down :-(
>
>
>
>>> That many apps already have a form of session management is one of
>>> the problems for NSM. What should a developer do when attempting to
>>> support NSM in an application which already has Jack Session support
>>> and LASH support? It increases the complexity of what the user
>>> interface has to deal with.
>>
>> First, it makes it far more easy to implement NSM. The time consuming
>> 'search work' for adding session support is already done.
>
>>
>> Second, I assume that it is possible to support more session api's in
>> one application.
>
> The point I was making is supporting multiple session handlers makes
> the application more complex than it necessarily needs to be and
> increases the amount of code that needs to be maintained.
>
> If LASH has so many faults and nobody is maintaining LASH itself, by
> dropping support for LASH in clients we kill two birds with one
> stone: 1) there's less maintenence work for devs to do - always good
> and 2) it directs users to better solutions such as NSM.
>
> But I don't actually know what user base exists for LASH. I want to
> drop support for it but will revolting users castrate me for it?
>