[LAU] What are we talking about. (Was: KILL DBUS)

On Mon, 18 May 2009 17:36:11 +0400, alex stone <compose59(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hi again. Ok, let's stop dancing then :) Let me try to explain that dbus here is not the center of what has changed in JACK2. The new feature in JACK2 is the control API. That is: a *C control API*. Now it is very important to read the previous sentence over and over again. Once the dbus keyword has disappeared of your focus, read on. So, this C/C++ control API allows one to start/stop jack, configure it, and manage connections in between clients. This C control API allows one to control the server entirely in a cleaner fashion than what was used before. jackd makes use of this new API. And now the fun part. Say we want to control JACK with hmm... OSC. One will program something called jackosc that will *expose* the jack control API through a small OSC server. it's as simple as some python bindings for instance. Now that I have explained most of the new stuff in JACK2, back to our issue. jackdbus is just like what I described with jackosc, except that instead of *exposing the C API* through an OSC interface, we do that through a DBUS interface. You should already have the answer : there is and there will always be. The JACK control API is the core and is C, dbus is just an interface, just like any other kind of interface would be (OSC, HTTP, whatever...). So you want to have 2 separate versions maintained ? One with a control API and no interfaces other than plain C and one with interfaces included ? Because if it's not a compile time option, I don't see what else it could be. Who wants to maintain to trees just to hide a compile time option ? what if we really add jackosc to the list ? Should that be a third tree ? Nedko, Stéphane: If I made any mistakes in my explanations, please correct me :) Marc-Olivier Barre. ------ Participez au black-out anti-HADOPI : http://www.laquadrature.net/fr/APPEL-HADOPI-blackout-du-net-francais