Paul Davis paul at linuxaudiosystems.com
Sat Nov 21 14:45:50 UTC 2009

On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Patrick Shirkey
<pshirkey at boosthardware.com> wrote:

> 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.

I don't really care at all about the technology inside a Linux session
handling "toolkit", although clearly it would be nicer if it worked on
all Linux systems. What I care about is the complete lack of any
stable API that a developer of an application that would participate
in this could use and have some confidence in. Do I believe that using
dbus as an IPC mechanism makes sense in this case, and that therefore
"the API" is really just a set of dbus names and semantics? Well, i'm
agnostic about that (my doubt comes from the fact that the
participants are all already connected via an existing IPC mechanism
that is guaranteed to be running; its called JACK), but in the end it
does not matter much to me - what matters more is that the work to
integrate an application into the system can be done, and stay done.
My impression of LASH and its cousins is that this simply hasn't
happened yet.

More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list