[LAU] bare minimum session handling

[Patrick Shirkey]

>
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 23:12:42 +0100
> Renato<rennabh at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>    
>> Hello, from users' perspective, what are currently the options for
>> minimum session handling? I'd just like for a starter to have multiple
>> sets of connections and be able to save and load them.
>> Is there any documentation on at least one way of doing this? Couldn't
>> find any
>> Is patchage capable of doing this? What exactly does the "save
>> positions" menu entry do?
>>
>> In second order, what may we expect from the near future in terms of
>> more advanced session handling (lash, ladi)? Are they
>> (lash/ladi) currently usable and used? (Certainly they lack
>> documentation)
>>
>> Renato
>>      
>
>
> Thanks to all who have responded, I now have qjackctl's patchbay and
> jack_snapshot + bash scripts to look into. Didn't know of any of them,
> so it's been useful asking.
>
> I read the discussion on LAD from some months ago on LADI and I
> understand the problem is still hot. In now way I want to start a flame
> war, I just want to shed some light on this subject, especially from
> user's perspective. Especially I'd like to understand where and how
> would our feedback be most valuable.
>
> As far as I can understand LADI is, for technical reasons, not
> "approved" by all devs, i.e. many think it's design is sort of rushed
> and not as efficient/elegant/good as it could/should be, and because of
> this it will never be rock solid.
> It seems that a more definitive solution would need a partial rewriting
> of JACK itself.
>
> OTOH the only active development that is being made to solve this whole
> session management problem is on LADI. It seems that there is no one
> with enough knowledge, time and interest to work out the more
> definitive solution.
>
>    


The problem is not a lack of knowledge. Nedko and the other LADI 
contributors have written over 60,000 lines of code and counting. 
However, the solution they are working does not fit everyones vision for 
the best way to handle the requirements for session management.

That by itself is not a problem for everyone as the people whose 
requirements are not being met by LADI are more than capable of creating 
their own session management systems.

IMO the real problem is that we have too many options for session 
management. That means normal users are left scratching their heads to 
figure out the best way to manage their sessions. From a desktop Linux 
POV this is a big drawback but from a Linux Audio POV it is just 
business as usual.


Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd




> As i wrote them, these two paragraphs above seem pretty incongruent to
> me (couldn't people working on LADI invest their time in a more
> definitive and "approved by all" solution?) so either I missed some
> points (situation which I'd be happy to acknowledge), either the
> incongruence is really there (less happy).
>    
> I realize no one has definitive answers, but at least I'd like to
> understand if LADI has at least the possibility of a future and if it's
> worth my time to test, report bugs etc.
>
> waiting for some light
> Renato
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user at lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>