4 Feb
2008
4 Feb
'08
12:45 p.m.
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 16:56 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 03:40:12PM +0000, Bob Ham
wrote:
It's none of those, and it's crippled.
People who think that calling one (1, uno) function is a problem
should not be writing any form of applications
Well, in fact there would be no need to call any function to implement
generalised autoconnecting. All that is necessary is a daemon that pays
attention to the creation of new ports and connects them to hardware
ports.
The problem is that, whatever system you use that isn't JACK, is another
layer and some authors won't want to rely on it in order to provide
autoconnection functionality.
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 15:32 +0100, Fons
Adriaensen wrote:
In other
words, ** you could write this function today **.
The functionality you want does not require any changes
to jack.
The problem is, you're still going to get client authors who say "Well,
I have to implement insanely-annoying-automatic-port-connection because
I have to cater for the people who don't use $your_system" By bringing
autoconnection into JACK itself, there's a standardised, authorised,
proven, approved method. I will respect the opinions, tastes, and personal
preferences of anyone
who demonstrates a minimal amount of engagement, but _not_ of someone who
is so blatantly lazy as you suggest (I don't mean you, but the people you
refer to)
Those authors that I'm referring to are the ones who would implement
their own autoconnecting functionality rather than making one function
call. Laziness is not the issue. The issue is the additional
dependency needed to provide autoconnection functionality.
Bob
--
Bob Ham <rah(a)bash.sh>