[LAD] [Jack-Devel] Re : The future of videojack ?

Stéphane Letz letz at grame.fr
Wed May 7 20:04:58 UTC 2008

Le 7 mai 08 à 21:37, Juuso Alasuutari a écrit :

> Stéphane Letz wrote:
>> Video in jack1 won't happen because of several reasons that can be  
>> explained again: we want to fix and release jack1 soon and video  
>> in jack is a too big change to be integrated in the current state  
>> of the proposed patch.
>> The future of jack is now jack2, based on the jackdmp new  
>> implementation (http://www.grame.fr/~letz/jackdmp.html). A lot of  
>> work has already been done in this code base that is now API  
>> equivalent to jack2. New features are already worked on like the  
>> DBUS based control (developed in the "control" branch) and NetJack  
>> rework (developed in the "network" branch).
>> I think a combined "video + audio in a unique server" approach is  
>> perfectly possible: this would require having 2 separated graph  
>> for audio and video running at their own rate. Video and audio  
>> would be done in different callbacks and thus handled in different  
>> threads (probably running at 2 different priorities so that audio  
>> can "interrupt" video). Obviously doing that the right way would  
>> require a bit of work, but is probably much easier to design and  
>> implement in jackd2 codebase.
>> Thus I think a better overall approach to avoid "video jack fork"  
>> is to work in this direction, possibly by implementing video jack  
>> with the "separated server" idea first (since is is easier to  
>> implement). This could be started right away in a jack2 branch.
> I'll throw in my 2 Euro cents.
> If the VideoJACK crowd feels that JACK2 development is taking too  
> slow and decide to continue with their fork, may I suggest that we  
> all still discuss and draft a proper video API together? If a fork  
> happens out of practical reasons, it would be best to make sure  
> that switching video software to use JACK2 later on will be as  
> painless as possible.
> Technical issues aside, I wish that those affiliated with VideoJACK  
> do not feel that their needs are neglected by the JACK developers.  
> I hope that the recent discussion has proved that people in this  
> camp are willing to improve JACK in this respect. Perhaps we could  
> move on and try to find more common ground?
> Juuso

Yes sure.

Where is the latest state of the video patch for jack? I can have a  
look and see how easy/difficult it would be to implement that in a  
jackdmp/jack2 branch.


More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list