Hi Bob, thanks for commenting on LADI stuff
> The huge, major weak point that would prevent me from investing myself > in LADI is the use of D-Bus which requires an extra, external layer in > order to perform routing between objects on different buses. See my > previous mail on the subject here: > > http://lalists.stanford.edu/lad/2009/11/0350.html > >>From what Nedko has said on IRC, I believe LADISH has such a layer. D-Bus *can* span over multiple hosts. I've sent mail to this mailing list that explains how to do it and what needs to be improved: http://lalists.stanford.edu/lau/2009/11/0043.html see also: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/DBusRemote (probably somewhat obsolete, check the timestamp and the missing link to gabriel site). I've adopted the gabriel project because it is possible to improve it as a mean to achieve multihost LADI studios in future: http://gabriel.sourceforge.net/ That said, there is no guarantee that ladish will use D-Bus for communication between daemon and apps. LASH got this mainly because of Juuso Alasuutari and because it was subject of his Summercode project. My aim with "D-Bus + LASH" was to use D-Bus for lashd <-> jack comunication and for lashd <-> control app communication. I agreed on using D-Bus for app <-> lashd communication because that simplified (yes it did) the LASH codebase. The use of D-Bus for app <-> ladishd IPC was risky and it took some time to fix bugs, but at the end we made it to work acceptably well. Also, there is no guarantee that ladish will use D-Bus for remote IPC. I have rough plan how to use D-Bus for multihost studios, but there is lot of work to do until 1.0 is reached. After 1.0 is reached, I will reconsider available options for the multihost capable ladish (that will be 2.0), I will decide and I'll provide finer milestones to acomplish this goal, in the same way as I did for 1.0. In summary, I plan to use D-Bus at least until ladish-1.0 is relased. I've seen lot of arguments against D-Bus and so far I din't find them valid for the goals I'm working for. If D-Bus gets proven as wrong choice for single hosts studio before the release of 1.0, I'll have to change it early. However I find such incident highly non-probable. Chances for remote D-Bus being not suitable are slightly higher and I'll reconsider D-Bus after ladish-1.0 release. Until then, D-Bus is the IPC technology that allows me to implement LADI features in fastest possible way and does not look as something that I'll abandon soon. This mail is not intended to be offensive to anyone. If someone dislikes D-Bus for one reason or another it is his right. I'm always open for constructive discussions, especially if they are in the scope of the LADI project. I'm open and glad for the feedback of early jackdbus and ladish adopters. -- Nedko Arnaudov <GnuPG KeyID: DE1716B0>
pgpyORdtMmhin.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
