27 Feb
2003
27 Feb
'03
1:26 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 05:21:10PM +0100, Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 07:48:11PM +0200, Kai Vehmanen
wrote:
Well, AFAIK the current CSL implementation is rather poor. There is
aRts and OSS output only (not even ALSA!) and no pluginable interface
yet.
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:20:22 -0500
From: Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>
Reply-To: linux-audio-dev(a)music.columbia.edu
To: linux-audio-dev(a)music.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Fwd: CSL Motivation
CSL also "exists". There are discussions on kde-multimedia about
the future of Linux/Unix multimedia (especially sound).
This is one of the most interesting messages.
CSL is proposed primarily as a wrapper layer around existing APIs. as
such, it seems to me to have no particular merits over PortAudio,
which has the distinct advantages of (1) existing If you added CSL support to JACK right now, you would
never need to bother
with any of the "sound server guys" like me again, because you could always
say: "support CSL in your sound server thing, and then JACK will support your
sound server".
On the other hand, if you added JACK support to CSL, you could also mix the
output of all of these "sound servers" into JACK, without endangering your
latency properties.
The sound server has to support other sound servers. A bit sane, isn't it?
--
jozef kosoru