18 May
2009
18 May
'09
6:18 a.m.
Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> writes:
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Stéphane Letz
<letz(a)grame.fr> wrote:
Using the "dbus ate my babies" matra is causing mess because other
people don't think so. Using dbus interface in qjackctl would fix lot of
this mess and this is the reason I asked Rui about that. Of course "dbus
ate my babies" ppl would see usage of jackdbus in qjackctl as a bad
thing.
Does qjackctl support headless and multiserver jack setups?
How headless setups work? When someone logins through ssh, does it
access jackd server that runs as same user?
--
Nedko Arnaudov <GnuPG KeyID: DE1716B0>
After all these discussions on JACK2, D-Bus and
Qjackctl issues, here are
some general comments:
1) JACK2 *default* compilation mode defines the same starting scheme at
JACK1 was doing. So (beside possible bugs) it is supposed to be completely
"interchangeable" with JACK1. It can be controled with Qjackctl as usual.
2) JACK2 compiled in D-Bus is supposed to be controlled by a D-Bus based
control application... (jack_control is a simple python example of a control
application part of the package). Using JACK2 compiled in D-Bus with
Qjackctl is a "receipe for trouble", even if if can be done in some simple
use cases. (The point is that in this case the client auto-start feature
starts the "jackdbus" exe instead of "jackd" with all of the related
"settings" issues).
3) The port issue Fons told about in Qjackctl 0.3.4 seems to be a Qjackctl
bug, so has to be fixed at the right place.
I don't see right now any raisonable way to fix this mess, better than
adding even more complexity in the design... (Nedko any idea?) Otherwise I
guess the only way is to make this totally clear for packagers : 1) is the
standard way that maintains complete compatibility with legacy applications
and control applications. 2) is the "new" way to be used with new D-Bus
based control application (patchage ??)... So it would mean 2 separated
packages.
this sounds like a mess. there is a control API. i believe it was
agreed that the control API could be accessed directly (from C/C++
etc), or via other systems for which translators/layers were added
(e.g. DBus). i can see no reason why anyone would want to use choose
between a JACK server that can be controlled via either DBus or the
control API but not both. what is going on?
_______________________________________________
Jack-Devel mailing list
Jack-Devel(a)lists.jackaudio.org
http://lists.jackaudio.org/listinfo.cgi/jack-devel-jackaudio.org