3 Nov
2006
3 Nov
'06
3:51 a.m.
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 06:37:13PM +1100, Loki Davison wrote:
On 11/3/06, Jens M Andreasen
<jens.andreasen(a)chello.se> wrote:
I'd say that the essential feature of JACK is not that it is a
callback based system, but that it presents and expects audio
data in fixed size blocks and enforces the rule that all clients
must have processed a block before the next arrives.
This could be done with blocking as well as with a callback,
and indeed it would be useful if JACK offered that option.
--
FA
Lascia la spina, cogli la rosa.
On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 13:42 +1100, Loki Davison
wrote:
I actually meant vs a callback based system. Jack being callback based
makes it easier to understand in my mind. I didn't mention named
pipes, just the | <> signs. Even without the pipe section i think the
comment still stands. As a person new to all 3 i found jack by far the
easiest to understand and use. mmm. I think they are missing the point about
ALSA vs OSS api here. It
doesn't matter. The only one who should care about alsa vs oss is the
jack guys who write the jack backend. Everyone else uses the clear,
nice, well implemented, well documented modern and sensible jack api
instead of some very 80's style pipe based system.
JACK isn't based on "some very 80' style" named pipes anymore? When did
that happen?