23 May
2012
23 May
'12
3:25 p.m.
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Nikita Zlobin <cook60020tmp(a)mail.ru> wrote:
this is not accurate.
a backend is different from a normal client in one critical respect. rather
than having a single process() callback, it has two callbacks, one for "get
data from whatever source you represent" and one for "write data to
whatever sink you represent". These are called before and after
(respectively) the main process callback is executed for all regular
clients.
if you don't do this, you add another period's worth of latency to the data
flow.
and yes, the dummy source could be used for precisely the type of use you
mention, except .. this is what freewheeling exists for.
В Wed, 23 May 2012 09:40:47 -0400
Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
[ .... ] ?
What is the use case for "Waiting wheel.
?"
Just a way to prevent
It it true that I skipped over the proposal for
dynamic/on-the-fly
backend switching. This has already been discussed and yes, it would
be great to add it. Torben did this for his "tschak" implementation.
Its another example of something that needs to be done, not discussed.
Not just a backend. In my ideas sound card is not a backend, but just a
same client, as ardour, zynaddsubfx, etc. And any of them could serve
as clock source. E.g., if it is needed to load some project just for
mixdown, sequencer could be such source, and so - no cards is needed,
even dummy source.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev