[LAU] why shouldn't clients autoconnect to jack

Kjetil S. Matheussen k.s.matheussen at notam02.no
Mon Mar 23 18:14:10 EDT 2009

> On Monday 23 March 2009 14:58:38 Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
> > Without that, the other things I said would have been incredibly stupid.
> >
> > > i do agree that it would be good to define some "system aliases" so that
> > > it was possible to reliably and controllably discover *which* physical
> > > ports to connect to if autoconnect is going to be used.
> >
> > That sounds too complicated. Why not just add a command line option for
> > jackd for selecting which client to autoconnect to?
> I don't think JACK should be complicated by defining autoconnect 
> mechanisms in
> there.
> Applications should provide the option and configuration for it.
> I think the proposals given for the app to ask upon first startup (either 
> via
> a GUI if the app has a graphical interface, or through command line 
> interface
> if not) to the user how you want to configure the behaviour is the 
> clearest
> way.
> The configuration dialog can suggest the first hardware ports by default, 
> if
> that is the expected most common user case.
> That way the user is aware that he can configure it, and can adapt the 
> program
> to her needs.

Letting jack autoconnect doesn't prevent applications from 
setting up a custom connection system, so the above
suggestion is beside my point, and it doesn't address the
problems I was addressing either.

The problem with jack is that application
writers simply don't bother to do all the work required
to handle configurable connection handling,
and instead they just autoconnect to the physical outputs.

If jack had autoconnected by default, we wouldn't have
had this problem.

More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list