3 Apr
2012
3 Apr
'12
11:39 a.m.
On 04/03/2012 10:05 AM, rncbc wrote:
On 03.04.2012 06:49, Joel Roth wrote:
As far as I understood, to have everything saved in the session folder
was designed to make the behavior of the session manager more
predictable and more simple to avoid errors and misbehavior.
To be able to export the session was *not* the primary choice for this
(correct me if I am wrong).
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 03:44:17PM +0200, Emanuel
Rumpf wrote:
<snip>
Back to life - back to reality
1. We start qtractor as part of a session, create some midi-tracks,
include some external wav-files.
Should the SM "know" about these external files, as I suggested ?
(Allowing the user to find out basic info about it. )
Or leave it completely to qtractor ?
As I understand it, the primary motivation for a session
manager is to be able to save and restore the state of an
audio project[1] that consists of multiple interconnected
programs running on a multiprocessing Linux system.
In other words, the minimum capability sufficient to be
useful would be some sort of checkpointing mechanism.
A secondary goal, discussed extensively here, is that it
would be nice to be able to copy a session or export a
session. This is where all the contentious issues with
handling filesystem objects comes up.
The latter goal should be optional, IMO, rather than required.
</snip>
this is exactly what i've been trying to tell (only that my english
wording leaves a lot to be desired)
thanks Joel :)
the primary goal is already achieved by qtractor on jack-session and
ladish; the second goal is the one i called "utopian".
speaking from a developer's pov. i find it very unlikely that NSM will
ever get broader acceptance than jack-session and/or ladish, given the
"utopian" restrictions it poses on client application design.
i wonder for a while: modifying an application to participate in
jack-session, for instance, is dead simple and costs only a small amount
of developer time and effort, provided he/she has the proper motivation ;)
otoh. i have this creepy feeling that, to comply to NSM, one has to
compromise a lot of the application design and behavior--gui
restrictions, file location restrictions, osc managing interface, to
name a few--not that they are bad ideas at all, quite the contrary, but
they impose a kind of non-negligible (pun intended;) change into
application workings, unless coded to comply to the NSM-client-logo from
day zero.
Feelings are important, especially when dealing with something like
session management which success depends more or less by the adoption by
others. But I think we need to know the *facts* here. Is it really that
way as you think it is, or is it just your initial resistance (which one
can understand) to comply to the strict rules of NSM and isn't it that
bad when having a closer look at it?
It's a reasonable point to discuss though...
i keep wondering: if that ever flies above its toes then i'll certainly
call it "The linux-audio revolution" (or miracle, scnr:)
cheers
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev