linuxaudio.org

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:15:16 -0800

"J. Liles"  wrote:
>

quoted text
> I'm not starting a war. Many of the other SM protocols were designed with

> full knowledge of their limitations and compromises (that is to say, the

> authors don't believe they are the best solution by any means, just a

> workable one). In fact, the differences between the different SM protocols

> are great, and in the case of NSM even greater. Drobilla, with mention of

> shell scripts, was speaking only of a session disk format that could used

> to port existing sessions from one SM to another. 

OK, that makes sense. Porting existing sessions would be a good first

step, but still, it sounds cumbersome. I'm not sure if it would be much

easier than starting the apps by hand.
>If we add NSM support to

quoted text
> LADISH, that will be exactly what you desire. One SM front end that

> supports every extant protocol. However, I believe this will hardly make

> the situation any easier on the *user* than it is now (and since when are

> people happy with LASH etc?). LASH, jack-session and LADISH Level 1 are

> extremely limited, and, IMHO inadequate protocols. 

In what way? I don't know much about LASH and LADISH, but I'm looking

at the jack-session api docs [1] right now. From what I can see, it

does everything it needs to do. There is also a GUI available in

qjackctl which I use anyway. I think that I, as a user, would be happy

with jack-session, if only my favourite apps would support it!
>Continuing support for

quoted text
> them does nothing to enhance the user experience. And it isn't as if we're

> talking about 100s of client applications here, there are only a handful

> that support any kind of SM protocol period. I may have the desire to patch

> everything to support NSM, but what I do not have is the time (and the time

> I might spend adding NSM support to LADISH might better be spent converting

> jack-session and LASH clients over to NSM). In any case, patching will do

> far more good than talking!

True, but patching to what? NSM? I like NSM but I'm not convinced that

it is "the best" possible SM. Others may think similar. Some people may

still want to support jack-session, simply because they think it is the

way to go, even if you think it is inadequate or obsolete. 
You won't win everyone over to use NSM. Or *any* particular SM, for that

matter. It's cat herding. For this reason, I still think an

interoperability layer would be a good thing. If it is technically

feasible I'm not sure.
[1]

http://jackaudio.org/files/docs/html/group__SessionClientFunctions.html
_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

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