Nick Copeland nickycopeland at hotmail.com
Tue Apr 8 22:45:50 EDT 2008

>> So why is there so low interest in LASH?

That almost answers itself. Linux Audio does not exist in a vacuum. Most applications respond to the demands of the users since the developers are pushed along by necessity as much as their own interests. The demand for LASH features has been pretty low on LAU, the one submit here and there with a single response attest to that.

You do need to add in a few things about the interface and Dave commented on that: Jack is easy to work with. Jack is about as cool as it gets for audio interfacing, barring a few xruns due to bad programming practices and perhaps scarce documentation it takes care of all the gory stuff that is associated with an audio device and fulfills a demand to be able to share the scarce inputs and outputs to the soundcard. It does a double act of providing features the user wants with facilities that a developer would like to have so has gained the acceptance it deserves. In its most basic form it is easy to interface and any new linux audio application developer would be well advised to make this the only one they implement. It has pretty much overtaken ALSA as the de facto user audio interface on Linux.

At the moment I don't think any of that is true of LASH. I have not looked at incorporating it but I can see several caveats that could affect the ease of implementation - it may not lend itself well to the different internal architectures of the various audio appliications. So, if it presents potential issues and there is little demand then there is an extremely high barrier to entry. At the moment I don't see why an application developer should go out of their way to provide this interface and that is not the case with Jack.

That may change in the future, LASH effectively lives higher up the food chain - perhaps when users get used to having a barrage of useful applications that can be linked up via Jack then there will be more demand for a session handler to simplify linking them. Having said that the interface still needs to be appropriate to the developers, something that still needs to be seen. Also, having read diverse submits on this list of how users have scripted their own means to build those links then the added benefit of LASH diminishes - if scripting fulfills the requirements of the (savvy) user,and at the moment most LAU are savvy, then the overhead of LASH may not justify itself. At the expense of repeating what I just wrote, the overhead to having a Jack interface is relatively low and the benefits to both developer and user are self spoken.

That was perhaps rather long and should have been sumarised to just that last sentence.

Explore the seven wonders of the world

More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list