Re: [LAD] Summercode 2008: LASH, pt. 3

Bob Ham wrote: I apologise for the sloppy language I used. I should've specified that with 'libjack' I'm referring to what libjack is at the present moment. In my opinion, LASH shouldn't communicate with JACK using the "normal" client lib. It goes against the concept (LASH is special; it's not your generic audio application), and it has its limitations. Some of the issues with the current libjack API are lack of engine and driver parameter controls, lack of control for stopping, starting, and auto-launching JACK, and the practical requirement that a port connection frontend be RT capable. (I've understood that the last one doesn't apply to libjackmp, though.) Most of these would be solved by a control interface to JACK, which is something that LASH should use. It could be a D-Bus interface that's built into JACK or, preferably, the control interface could be a separate library/API provided by JACK. This API could then be used to implement a D-Bus interface, an OSC interface, and LASH could use it directly. I'm starting to get a feeling that what I just said isn't all that new. Of course it's not my idea -- it's been talked about on #lad many times already -- but doesn't it resemble something that you suggested at some point earlier on, Bob? (What goes around, comes around.) Juuso