18 Apr
2008
18 Apr
'08
8:17 a.m.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 09:51:51AM +0100, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
i'm sure the biggest problem here is the braindead
snapshot feature which
doesn't do what you really want ootb. and the keyword here is the ootb;)
suppose you have this connection scenario:
client_a:out_1 -> client_b:in_3
client_a:out_2 -> client_b:in_4
client_a:out_3 -> client_b:in_2
client_a:out_4 -> client_b:in_1
then the snapshot will make it like:
socket_a -> socket_b
client_a client_b
out_1 in_1
out_2 in_2
out_3 in_3
out_4 in_4
This example would suggest that the connection made are
based on the lexicographical order of the ports, as they
are displayed. But this is in general *not* the case.
The snapshot seems to use the *unsorted* list.
If client b has an additional port, let's say 'test',
(it would be the 5th one in the list, after in_4),
the connection made could as well be:
socket_a -> socket_b
client_a client_b
out_1 test
out_2 in_1
out_3 in_2
out_4 in_3
The same happens when you make the connections selecting
the two apps instead of the ports: the order does not in
general correspond to the one that is displayed.
From the user's point of view, the mapping is just
random.
imho, the big question is not whether the patchbay
model doesn't fit to
all purposes, but whether the current super-naive snapshot mapping is any
better than not having one :)
I still faill to understand why the snapshot can't do what its name
suggests it will do: make a copy of the existing connections.
If a human user is supposed to be able to create a patchbay
corresponding to a given set of connection, by folllowing
some procedure, why can a piece of software not do the same ?
In particular if said procedure is supposed to be simple and
intuitive.
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
Lascia la spina, cogli la rosa.