[LAD] LADI

rosea grammostola rosea.grammostola at gmail.com
Sat Dec 19 20:15:22 UTC 2009


Bob Ham wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 16:53 +0100, Adrian Knoth wrote:
>   
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 08:53:02AM +0000, Bob Ham wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> local sessions are a subset of the functionality provided by network
>>> sessions
>>>       
>> If you want to have network transparency inside the audio framework,
>> this perspective might be true.
>>     
>
> I do want that.
I have read this thread with interest, all though I lack the knowledge 
to have an opinion about the technical choices.

To me it seems that there is some kind of agreement that dbus is not the 
most ideal thing to use.
Also if I understand it well, Nedko has chosen  dbus because it's the 
best solution which is available now. Plus he really needs a session 
handler... so he's taking some kind of practical approach here.

Roughly I think I can make three groups after reading this thread:

1) The 'one app with plugins' group. People who are focusing on one big 
app, extended by plugins (Ardour, Qtractor, LV2/DSSI). This group 
doesn't have much interest in a session handler.

2) The people who likes to work with different, small Jack applications 
(ams, aeolus, epichord etc.). These people are interested in a session 
handler. But they think dbus is the wrong approach, it is to limited for 
them, or it is not the right thing for the Linux platform in their opinion.

3) Group 3 is the same as group 2, BUT they have chosen dbus as 
solution. It's the LADI group.


I don't think we can expect the members of group 1 to build a session 
handler for us. They are not interested enough in a session handler.

We can expect that group 3 will build a session handler for us. LADI is 
in active development and they already made some progress.


Now I'm wondering, what can we expect from group 2?


\r



More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list