Re: [LAD] Interoperability between session management systems

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Johannes Kroll <jkroll@...>
Cc: <linux-audio-dev@...>
Date: Sunday, February 24, 2013 - 1:28 am

--14dae9340959b338df04d66e5830
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Johannes Kroll wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:47:26 -0500

All of the existing session management protocols have inherent limitations
which I was attempting to avoid by creating NSM. Nedko and I have discussed
including NSM protocol support in LADISH, which would be kind of like what
you're talking about, but the problem remains that the whole would be a
lowest-common-denominator of functionality. Now, if jack session and LASH
and LADISH level 1 applications eventually fade out and move to the NSM
protocol, then maybe that's OK. But in the meantime it's not going to be as
functional as using pure NSM.

--14dae9340959b338df04d66e5830
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Johanne=
s Kroll <jkroll@lavabit.com> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:47:26 -0500<=
br>
Paul Davis <paul@linuxaudi=
osystems.com
> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Johannes Kroll <jkroll@lavabit.com> wrote:

ting
et
/xkcd.com/927/

You and David do not understand what I'm proposing. My inte=
ntion is not
to create a new protocol. Creating another system because there are
already too many would be indeed idiotic: that's what has been done
before with the other session managers. I imagine creating *something*
that makes the existing systems work together, *without* changing the
clients that use the existing systems.

I.e. one app may be thinking it's talking to non-session, one app
speaks ladish, another thinks it's talking to jack-session, but in
reality they all talk to one session manager which implements all 3
(4... 7... umpteen) protocols.

I have not looked at the implementations of the existing systems. Maybe
what I'm proposing is not easily possible. In any case, I want you to
understand that I'm not proposing to increase the number of systems in<=
br>
order to decrease the number of systems. That would be, indeed, dumb in
a painfully obvious way.
All of the existing session management protocols =
have inherent limitations which I was attempting to avoid by creating NSM. =
Nedko and I have discussed including NSM protocol support in LADISH, which =
would be kind of like what you're talking about, but the problem remain=
s that the whole would be a lowest-common-denominator of functionality. Now=
, if jack session and LASH and LADISH level 1 applications eventually fade =
out and move to the NSM protocol, then maybe that's OK. But in the mean=
time it's not going to be as functional as using pure NSM.
=C2=A0

--14dae9340959b338df04d66e5830--

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

Messages in current thread:
[LAD] Interoperability between session management systems, Johannes Kroll, (Sat Feb 23, 4:01 pm)
Re: [LAD] Interoperability between session management systems, David Robillard, (Sat Feb 23, 11:36 pm)
Re: [LAD] Interoperability between session management systems, David Robillard, (Sat Feb 23, 11:45 pm)
Re: [LAD] Interoperability between session management systems, J. Liles, (Sun Feb 24, 1:28 am)
Re: [LAD] Interoperability between session management systems, Roy Vegard Ovesen, (Sun Feb 24, 10:58 am)