30 May
2012
30 May
'12
6:18 a.m.
Hi,
Does anyone knows if there is a reason, except for the concern of a unique
name per client, for jack clients to use the PID as suffix for the client
name instead of simply allows the user to name it through the command line?
As mentioned in [1], if we use, per example, qjackctl as front end for
jackd and save the session, the next day you cannot load the same
connections because the PIDs had changed. I think it would be better if we
could name the clients ourselves.
[1]
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-dev/2009-December/026175.…
The email referenced in [1] was not solved, so I don't know if we do have
an answer for that question by now.
Cheers,
--
Marcel Bonnet
30 May
30 May
11:24 a.m.
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Marcel Bonnet <marcelbonnet(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone knows if there is a reason, except for the concern of a unique
name per client, for jack clients to use the PID as suffix for the client
name instead of simply allows the user to name it through the command line?
As mentioned in [1], if we use, per example, qjackctl as front end for
jackd and save the session, the next day you cannot load the same
connections because the PIDs had changed. I think it would be better if we
could name the clients ourselves.
JACK does not create such names. This is an issue with specific clients
that choose to use this naming convention, rather than with JACK itself.
Clients should rely on jack_client_open() to generate a unique name if the
name they request is already taken, and should not try to generate a unique
name for themselves (unless the user provides the unique name, which is
entirely different).
Note that if you do, in fact, run the same client multiple times, then
there will always be issues with defining the connections (not necessarily
that significant though).
4611
days inactive
4611
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Marcel Bonnet -
Paul Davis