19 Jan
2008
19 Jan
'08
12:40 a.m.
Paul Davis wrote:
i don't know that it matters, but this is not
strictly how it happened.
JACK was developed out of Ardour's initial AudioEngine object. As a
result, when the first version of JACK was available, Ardour could
already use it. how much of an incentive or disincentive this was to
JACK's adoption is probably not relevant.
It surely didn't hinder it. ;-) But seriously, this is an important
point. You can't just come up with an extended protocol like this
without knowing a great deal about the demands of advanced applications
in this realm (SuperCollider et al).
Most people just talk about MIDI's resolution issues, which are
important, but there's other things that would be good to have in a
"better than MIDI" protocol:
- Dynamic voice allocation, a.k.a. a way to manage a lot of temporary
voices.
- Flexible and easy controller mapping, to make it easy to interface to
different between different hardware and software.
- Feature discovery. Something like what controller types does this
device/software understand, what are the default values and ranges of
controllers, etc.
That's from the top of my head, I'm sure there are other points to consider.
Albert
--
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email: Dr.Graef(a)t-online.de, ag(a)muwiinfa.geschichte.uni-mainz.de
WWW: http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag