10 Oct
2004
10 Oct
'04
8:46 p.m.
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
Yes, you're right. Sorry. And only now I see that qjackctl's jack port
list sorting is somewhat flawed, and has been like that for quite a long
time.
Nevertheless, I'm really glad you noticed and insisted on the matter, Fons.
In fact, even my suggestion of numbering ports like out_1L, out_1R, ...
doesn't come right either, as you've verified.
I though the correct sorted output should be:
out_1L
out_1R
out_2L
out_2R
but it actually comes like this:
out_1L
out_2L
out_1R
out_2R
so I think I gotta review the code, as it doesn't obey the "natural" order
I've mentioned earlier which I guess as being the consensual one to do.
I think you shouldn't bother on jack maintaining any guarantee on port
ordering, as clients might be quite dynamic in general, when regarding
port (de)registering.
Bye now. But I'll be back...
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rncbc(a)rncbc.org
Florian's suggestion makes sense, of naming
the ports like something in
the lines of:
out_1L
out_1R
out_2L
out_2R
I tried a number of different schemes, and here are the results:
(creation order 1L, 1R, 2L, 2R, ....)
-> 4L 3L 1L 2L 2R 4R 3R 1R ????
-> out1L out2L out3L out4L out1R out2R out3R out4R
-> out_1L out_2L out_3L out_4L out_1R out_2R out_3R out_4R
-> out_L1 out_L2 out_L3 out_L4 out_R1 out_R2 out_R3 out_R4
So none of them is really satisfactory, and this is only a simple case.