11 Apr
2015
11 Apr
'15
5:26 a.m.
Am Donnerstag, 9. April 2015, 09:00:38 schrieben Sie:
Speaking entirely personally, I think this design is
just plain nuts. I
know there are some JACK-ecosystem developers who disagree with me, but I
think that using JACK clients for this purpose is just wrong and is pushing
the design scope for JACK.
Ok, let's say I'll do what multiple people proposed here: one jack client per
effect + only data exchange between effects via jack ports.
Then see this example:
piano roll ----- (notes) -----> synthesizer
How should one transfer notes using a jack buffer? Of course, one could make a structure
to transfer notes, cast this structure to const char*, and *hope* it fits into the port
buffer. Is there any better way? Maybe a "custom port type"?
11 Apr
11 Apr
7:54 a.m.
New subject: [Jack-Devel] Avoiding spinlocks in a parallel sequencer
JACK already supports MIDI data. Presumably if you are using notes, you
would use that.
But again, I wasn't proposing "one jack client per effect" ... I was
proposing only a single JACK client per application, and NOT using JACK's
audio graph capabilities within your application: you would need to compute
execution order yourself or use a nice library for this (not that there
necessarily are any nice libraries).
On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Johannes Lorenz <
johannes89(a)mailueberfall.de> wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 9. April 2015, 09:00:38 schrieben Sie:
Speaking entirely personally, I think this design
is just plain nuts. I
know there are some JACK-ecosystem developers who disagree with me, but I
think that using JACK clients for this purpose is just wrong and is
pushing
the design scope for JACK.
Ok, let's say I'll do what multiple people proposed here: one jack client
per effect + only data exchange between effects via jack ports.
Then see this example:
piano roll ----- (notes) -----> synthesizer
How should one transfer notes using a jack buffer? Of course, one could
make a structure to transfer notes, cast this structure to const char*, and
*hope* it fits into the port buffer. Is there any better way? Maybe a
"custom port type"?
_______________________________________________
Jack-Devel mailing list
Jack-Devel(a)lists.jackaudio.org
http://lists.jackaudio.org/listinfo.cgi/jack-devel-jackaudio.org
3543
days inactive
3543
days old
jackaudio@lists.linuxaudio.org
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Johannes Lorenz -
Paul Davis