All of the existing session management protocols have inherent limitations
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
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Johannes Kroll <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
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<=
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.