On 11/21/2009 02:47 PM, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > > On 11/21/2009 10:13 PM, Rui Nuno Capela wrote: >> On 11/21/2009 05:18 AM, Patrick Shirkey wrote: >> >>> One major item of note is that qjackctl now has preliminary dbus support >>> even though Rui has stated that it would not happen. This step in itself >>> should be clear a major roadblock to LADI integration and deployment. >>> >>> >> wait, i don't seem to remember having said it would *not* happen. i >> think i had said it would be *hard* to happen, mainly due to my >> everlasting lack of time. you all know the stance ;) >> >> and moving on a bit (but staying in the same place): >> >> i think a also made my position long ago that qjackctl is a jack control >> application and thus, it should harness the jack control api and nothing >> else on the side. imo, it's this jack control api or protocol that >> should be implemented through whatever ipc mechanism you think of (dbus, >> osc, yada yada). >> >> ok, in that sense, you can say that qackctl would not go the jack dbus >> route, at least directly face to face. again imo, it must do it on top a >> an established jack control interface. no more no less ;) >> >> > > > LADI represents a very powerful and flexible session management system > that has been built on 7 years of intense debate/thinking/development > and several competing and complimentary implementations. >
first time i've heard of the ladi effort was in the lac2...@koln cafeteria. is there an old conspiracy or has dan brown already picked up the lads as subjects? nevermind, i've been m.i.a. too many times :) > Qjackctl *is* the default desktop management interface for jack. > > It would be a very powerful combination if qjackctl supported the > functionality provided by the LADI tools. Currently we have a > chicken/egg situation as you are not prepared to spend your valuable > time on session support until it is officially established but if the > default management tool doesn't support the most flexible option we have > available then how can it be considered established? > please note, i've meant the establishment of the so called *jack control api* iow, libjackcontrol.so. i really don't care whether that jack-control-api is actually implemented through dbus, osc or whatever-ipc, but it must be established enough as the official way to control jack. qjackctl, as i know it, is only going through that jack-control-api and *not* dbus, osc, whatever. > If LADI which now represents a significant effort by several very clever > and committed developers is not officially supported then we as a > community are encouraging the fragmentation to continue rather than > forging better integration. > > Supporting LADI doesn't mean that a non dbus solution can't be supported > or that everyone has to be forced to use the dbus solution. > of course. byee -- rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela rn...@rncbc.org _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
