On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Stéphane Letz <letz(a)grame.fr> wrote:
After all these discussions on JACK2, D-Bus and
Qjackctl issues, here are
some general comments:
1) JACK2 *default* compilation mode defines the same starting scheme at
JACK1 was doing. So (beside possible bugs) it is supposed to be completely
"interchangeable" with JACK1. It can be controled with Qjackctl as usual.
2) JACK2 compiled in D-Bus is supposed to be controlled by a D-Bus based
control application... (jack_control is a simple python example of a control
application part of the package). Using JACK2 compiled in D-Bus with
Qjackctl is a "receipe for trouble", even if if can be done in some simple
use cases. (The point is that in this case the client auto-start feature
starts the "jackdbus" exe instead of "jackd" with all of the related
"settings" issues).
3) The port issue Fons told about in Qjackctl 0.3.4 seems to be a Qjackctl
bug, so has to be fixed at the right place.
I don't see right now any raisonable way to fix this mess, better than
adding even more complexity in the design... (Nedko any idea?) Otherwise I
guess the only way is to make this totally clear for packagers : 1) is the
standard way that maintains complete compatibility with legacy applications
and control applications. 2) is the "new" way to be used with new D-Bus
based control application (patchage ??)... So it would mean 2 separated
packages.
this sounds like a mess. there is a control API. i believe it was
agreed that the control API could be accessed directly (from C/C++
etc), or via other systems for which translators/layers were added
(e.g. DBus). i can see no reason why anyone would want to use choose
between a JACK server that can be controlled via either DBus or the
control API but not both. what is going on?