<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Am 24.02.2013 04:15, schrieb J. Liles:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGhWSSbsrz2zzN9CTktJCTbbhrrNz_nVmoFEjkHJSHDL6QqRUQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Johannes
Kroll <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jkroll@lavabit.com" target="_blank">jkroll@lavabit.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 17:28:49 -0800<br>
"J. Liles" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:malnourite@gmail.com">malnourite@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> All of the existing session management protocols have
inherent limitations<br>
> which I was attempting to avoid by creating NSM. Nedko
and I have discussed<br>
> including NSM protocol support in LADISH, which would
be kind of like what<br>
> you're talking about, but the problem remains that the
whole would be a<br>
> lowest-common-denominator of functionality. Now, if
jack session and LASH<br>
> and LADISH level 1 applications eventually fade out and
move to the NSM<br>
> protocol, then maybe that's OK. But in the meantime
it's not going to be as<br>
> functional as using pure NSM.<br>
<br>
</div>
Please, don't turn this into a "which session manager is the
best" war,<br>
that's not what I intended. Surely each coder thinks *their*
session<br>
manager is the best one, why else would they have written it.
In<br>
reality every SM has their strengths and weaknesses I guess.
(For<br>
example I noticed that NSM, which I otherwise like, can't
restore Jack<br>
connections without an external tool like jack_patch - and
with the<br>
tool, it doesn't seem to restore MIDI connections).<br>
<br>
About shell scripts (David): that sounds like the lowest
common<br>
denominator approach, and while it's neat and UNIXy and
everything,<br>
unless I misunderstood, writing shell scripts to start apps is
what I<br>
can do anyway, without any session manager. Also, I think the
ability<br>
to tell apps to save state while they are running is
important, and<br>
shell scripts can't do that.<br>
<br>
I would hope that something more than the lowest common
denominator<br>
approach would be possible. As I understand it, all SM systems
do the<br>
following, in one way or the other:<br>
<br>
1) start apps with a saved state (may be implemented using 2)<br>
2) tell running apps to load their state from a given session<br>
3) tell apps to save their state to a given session<br>
4) possibly restore JACK and alsamidi connections<br>
5) possibly implement parts of the session loading and saving
(this<br>
might be completely up to the apps)<br>
<br>
If that's basically what SMs do, it should be possible to
create an<br>
interoperability layer (*NOT* a new protocol!) that talks the<br>
existing protocols and does the necessary things. There might
be<br>
tradeoffs, when one SM system has less functionality as the
other, but<br>
that would hopefully only affect the apps using that SM
system, not the<br>
others. So it would not be "lowest common denominator".<br>
<br>
If the differences between SMs are that great that doing this
isn't<br>
possible at all, that would be sad, because I don't really see
any SM<br>
becoming the defacto standard any time soon.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
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. If we add NSM support to 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. Continuing support for 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!<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I stated it out already in a other thread: without ever been
released as NSM (means available as tarball, or what ever, with ONLY
NSM included), I wouldn't support it. <br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>