On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Nikita Zlobin
<cook60020tmp@mail.ru> wrote:
÷ Wed, 23 May 2012 09:40:47 -0400
Just a way to prevent
[ .... ] ?
š
> 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.
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.
š