25 Sep
2011
25 Sep
'11
7:45 p.m.
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 01:24:36PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Renato
<rennabh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I don't buy that. Only clients that need the new port type would have
to support it. You could as well say that MIDI ports confuse pure
audio clients - it's just not true.
As to confusion, using audio type buffers for control signals - without
any way to identify those except maybe by name - would generate a lot
more of it. But since it's the only way, I'm already doing that in two
new apps. They both use audio channels as a bundle of 16 control signals.
Ciao,
--
FA
A more general thought: what about implementing a
new type of generic
"control" signal in JACK, and having existing audio apps accept these
it has been discussed. it has not been implemented. there was some
opposition, and as you note, any control signal can be recast as an
audio signal. it would not be hard to add it, but clients would have
to support the new port type explicitly and it would confuse others.