Re: [LAU] Non Session Manager Preview

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <linux-audio-user@...>
Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 - 4:56 pm

--20cf3011df23b543cf04b9906668
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>

Someone mentioned that after I had already patched ZynAddSubFX. The patch
doesn't readily apply to the Yoshimi code, but I'll look into adapting it.

JACK-Session is, from my perspective, far too basic to be useful. And,
AFAIK, Ladish is still lacking a robust protocol, currently relying on Unix
signals, JACK Session, and LASH to communicate with clients. And, of
course, LASH was always inadequate. I first started having issues with SM
back in 2008. Not much has actually been accomplished since then to meet
the requirements mentioned in my 2008 post (although Ladish does behave
better in many important aspects than lashd ever did).

The NSM API is well documented and I think that having support for it in
Ladish would be a Good Thing and not incompatible with the project goals,
although the user experience may suffer if LASH, JACK Session, etc clients
are allowed to mix in an NSM session becuase certain points of consistency
could no longer be guaranteed (due to the limitations of those APIs).

That being said, as you can see in the demo, Non-* will come with a fairly
fully featured session manager right out of the box if you can live without
the Ladish 'rooms' concept.

--20cf3011df23b543cf04b9906668
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Cool! Yoshimi would be a more logical choice these days maybe, but alas...<=
br>

If you didn't notice ;) , there is also JackSession now (and Ladish).

Maybe some documentation how to add support for your session stuff to other=
session managers would be good.

\r
Someone mentioned that after I had alr=
eady patched ZynAddSubFX. The patch doesn't readily apply to the Yoshim=
i code, but I'll look into adapting it.JACK-Session is, from my=
perspective, far too basic to be useful. And, AFAIK, Ladish is still lacki=
ng a robust protocol, currently relying on Unix signals, JACK Session, and =
LASH to communicate with clients. And, of course, LASH was always inadequat=
e. I first started having issues with SM back in 2008. Not much has actuall=
y been accomplished since then to meet the requirements mentioned in my 200=
8 post (although Ladish does behave better in many important aspects than l=
ashd ever did).
The NSM API is well documented and I think that having support for it i=
n Ladish would be a Good Thing and not incompatible with the project goals,=
although the user experience may suffer if LASH, JACK Session, etc clients=
are allowed to mix in an NSM session becuase certain points of consistency=
could no longer be guaranteed (due to the limitations of those APIs).
That being said, as you can see in the demo, Non-* will come with a fai=
rly fully featured session manager right out of the box if you can live wit=
hout the Ladish 'rooms' concept.=C2=A0

--20cf3011df23b543cf04b9906668--

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

Messages in current thread:
[LAU] Non Session Manager Preview, J. Liles, (Mon Feb 20, 4:58 am)
Re: [LAU] Non Session Manager Preview, plutek, (Tue Feb 21, 5:12 pm)
Re: [LAU] Non Session Manager Preview, rosea.grammostola, (Tue Feb 21, 5:56 pm)
Re: [LAU] Non Session Manager Preview, J. Liles, (Wed Feb 22, 4:56 pm)
Re: [LAU] Non Session Manager, rosea.grammostola, (Sat Mar 24, 10:51 am)