Patrick Shirkey pshirkey at boosthardware.com
Sat Nov 21 05:18:25 UTC 2009

On 11/21/2009 03:21 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> I am personally appalled by the debacle that LASH  turned into.
> Stemming from a proposal made years ago (by Bob Ham, I believe), LASH
> has gone more or less nowhere. It has never arrived at a stable,
> congruent and consistent specification, even via a header file. The
> people working on the project have appeared to a casual observer like
> myself to be in constant turnover and/or constantly redesigning the
> entire system with a claim that this time it will be done right. The
> project is, quite frankly, a joke when compared to what has been
> managed with ALSA, LADSPA, JACK and even something like DSSI.
> Certainly session management is an important issue when using a weakly
> connected set of cooperating applications, and it remains almost
> entirely unsolved. I personally have no faith that any of the work on
> LASH has moved us notably closer to an actual solution to this issue,
> although I will grant that it has helped some developers to get a
> better grasp on what some of the issues actually are, and for that I
> suppose we must be grateful.

We have seen many good things come from the session management 
development process. LADI is the most advanced implementation for 
session management that has been achieved so far.

There have been a consistent set of procedures applied in all the above 
projects and in many cases the issues that the session management people 
have encountered have been consistent the main exception being the lack 
of consensus by the community on which approach makes the most sense.

As has been stated before many times, the standard model established 
over the years in LAD has required one or two highly motivated people to 
push forward with their vision and also take on the wider community with 
a forceful and intense defense of their direction.

Nedko has chosen to work with dbus and has provided a very flexible 
system built on that decision. However his approach is not acceptable 
for all use cases. Afaict there is very little interest from parties 
that disagree with the dbus approach to enhance the LADI toolset in a 
way that makes it more flexible for their use and vision.

One major item of note is that qjackctl now has preliminary dbus support 
even though Rui has stated that it would not happen. This step in itself 
should be clear a major roadblock to LADI integration and deployment.

Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd

More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list