24 Feb
2003
24 Feb
'03
2:31 p.m.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 06:03:58 +0100, Martijn Sipkema wrote:
[...]
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.
I think its a bad idea to life hard for (some) clients because of a few
bad hardware designs.
- Steve
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.