On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 07:49:43 +0100, Martijn Sipkema wrote:
[...]
> Perhaps you would reconsider having JACK use
constant (frames)
> callbacks?
I think a better solution might be to buffer up enough samples so that
jackd can provide a constant number of frames.
I don't think that is a better solution. JACK should be close to the
hardware and deliver what the hardware is capable of. If a client needs
constant (frames) period, it can do the buffering itself.
Not without making the cpu load unpredictable.
Is that so? And why is it that JACK can and a client cannot?
Because the client can segment correctly give power-of-two buffers.
I think its a
bad idea to life hard for (some) clients because of a few
bad hardware designs.
Hardly a few. And not even necessarily bad.
It is a slightly crazy design. Just doesn't fit well with the way PCs work.
- Steve