[LAD] [ann] out now petri-foo 0.1.85 / NSM

James Morris james at jwm-art.net
Wed Aug 1 10:41:37 UTC 2012

On 01/08/12 "rosea.grammostola" <rosea.grammostola at gmail.com> wrote:
>On 08/01/2012 11:53 AM, James Morris wrote:

>>>> LASH failed despite 26 apps supporting it:
>>>> http://wiki.linuxaudio.org/apps/all/lash
>>> The problem with LASH is that it has obvious (technical) flaws.
>>> Session managers today are much better. Imo NSM has a great
>>> technical design, with advantages compared to other session api's
>>> and without (essential) technical flaws.
>>> If you think that all the apps apps.linuxaudio.org will support a
>>> session api, then  you're not very realistic. That's why it's
>>> essential that NSM support apps without NSM support and apps
>>> without a state in a user friendly way.
>> I guess. But for those who need to play around with stuff before they
>> find what they can use to start being productive it's not good.
>I don't see what you mean. You've a list of apps with NSM support. You 
>can use those in the NSM session. Other apps you can launch via 
>nsm-proxy. If you want to use Ladish l1, look at the list of apps with 
>ladish l1 support.

I would but linuxaudio.org seems to have gone down :-(

>> That many apps already have a form of session management is one of
>> the problems for NSM. What should a developer do when attempting to
>> support NSM in an application which already has Jack Session support
>> and LASH support? It increases the complexity of what the user
>> interface has to deal with.
>First, it makes it far more easy to implement NSM. The time consuming 
>'search work' for adding session support is already done.

>Second, I assume that it is possible to support more session api's in 
>one application.

The point I was making is supporting multiple session handlers makes
the application more complex than it necessarily needs to be and
increases the amount of code that needs to be maintained.

If LASH has so many faults and nobody is maintaining LASH itself, by
dropping support for LASH in clients we kill two birds with one
stone: 1) there's less maintenence work for devs to do - always good
and 2) it directs users to better solutions such as NSM.

But I don't actually know what user base exists for LASH. I want to
drop support for it but will revolting users castrate me for it?

More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list