[LAD] jack client autoconnection

Bob Ham rah at bash.sh
Mon Feb 4 16:45:50 UTC 2008


On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 16:56 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 03:40:12PM +0000, Bob Ham wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 15:32 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> 
> > > In other words, ** you could write this function today **.
> > > The functionality you want does not require any changes
> > > to jack.
> > 
> > The problem is, you're still going to get client authors who say "Well,
> > I have to implement insanely-annoying-automatic-port-connection because
> > I have to cater for the people who don't use $your_system"  By bringing
> > autoconnection into JACK itself, there's a standardised, authorised,
> > proven, approved method.
> 
> It's none of those, and it's crippled.
> 
> People who think that calling one (1, uno) function is a problem
> should not be writing any form of applications

Well, in fact there would be no need to call any function to implement
generalised autoconnecting.  All that is necessary is a daemon that pays
attention to the creation of new ports and connects them to hardware
ports.

The problem is that, whatever system you use that isn't JACK, is another
layer and some authors won't want to rely on it in order to provide
autoconnection functionality.

> I will respect the opinions, tastes, and personal preferences of anyone
> who demonstrates a minimal amount of engagement, but _not_ of someone who
> is so blatantly lazy as you suggest (I don't mean you, but the people you
> refer to)

Those authors that I'm referring to are the ones who would implement
their own autoconnecting functionality rather than making one function
call.  Laziness is not the issue.  The issue is the additional
dependency needed to provide autoconnection functionality.

Bob

-- 
Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh>




More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list