On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Paul Davis <p...@linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
> i feel that if you spend too long reasoning about this, you will > conclude, as I have, that JACK was actually a mistake (at least in > terms of the basic framework in which to glue together different > things processing data streams). the absence of a plugin API that was > likely to be adopted by all/most developers back in 2000 is what gave > rise to this situation. there's a limit to how far you can push the > usability of a "DAW" built out of N independent processes, each one > running code developed by different developers with no awareness of > the others. the limit is, thankfully, not too primitive, but its also > not far enough out to be able to pretend that JACK + N>1 clients is > actually functionally equivalent to a single host + plugins, at least > not in terms of state management. I'm curious about what you might have done differently if you knew then what you know now. -- Devin Anderson devin (at) charityfinders (dot) com CharityFinders - http://www.charityfinders.com/ synthclone - http://synthclone.googlecode.com/ _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev