On 04/04/2012 03:55 PM, rosea.grammostola wrote:
On 04/04/2012 04:39 PM, Rui Nuno Capela wrote:
Another question. If you compare NSM level 0 (!) with JackSession. Which
session manager do you prefer and why?
well, NSM level 0 adds nothing to what JSM already delivers. sorry for
the noise :)
the once self-called "uber-procrastinator" says: prefer what is already
there and "de-facto" working.
Your opinion is clear, but your arguments are not strictly correct I think.
You say that a hypothetical NSM level 0, adds nothing to what JS
delivers, but that's not true.
When I want to save a session in JS, I have to make a new folder. If I
want to save a slightly changed session, I have to make a new folder or
choose a existent folder. If I do the latter, the gui ask me if I really
want to overwrite it. I choose 'yes'. (This is what you could call
pretty cumbersome). In one case, someone did choose the /home/user
folder... and lost all his data. Ok, you've versioning now in
qjackctl... There is no way in Qjackctl to add apps without JS support
to the session. It is not possible to quit a session without saving it,
so I have to close every application manually.
In NSM on the other hand. I make a new session, add and remove apps on
the fly from a nice centralized and quick GUI interface. It's even easy
to add apps without NSM support (or scripts) via the GUI. If I change a
session, I'm just able to save it without making a new folder or
overwrite it. I am able to close a whole session and to abort a whole
session (without saving). As a user can expect, all apps in the session
close. Moreover it's possible to duplicate a session as a manner of
using templates. It's very easy and fast to change between sessions. I
am able to use session over the network very easily. I have never the
risk of overwriting my precious data. I' m able to add applications
without JACK support to NSM (Frescobaldi notation-editor, Emacs with
SuperCollder etc.).
If you say that NSM adds nothing then a) you didn't try it and don't
really know where you're talking about or b) don't think that the NSM
stuff mentioned above are valuable of any kind for a user.
i may have missed it, but those application clients which are NOT coded
as compliant to a session protocol are not the point--that's just a SM
implementation convenience outside of the bounds of the "ideal-SM"
discussion
i'll refresh your memory that pyjacksm (a JSM reference implementation)
does that too (something called exo-clients or wtf:). ladish have been
doing that also and way, way before, for ages now o.O
unfortunately, i reckon, qjackctl doesn't. on my own call it has been
pure&strict to the JS business (aka. protocol) and nothing more.
however, re. exo-/infra-clients (or w/e they've been called, i don't
quite remember exactly but those are about clients which are
non-jack-session-aware) are in the drawer ntl.
actually, i was minding about the *intrinsic* cost/benefits of the
session protocol and *not* about *any* particular *session management*
(SM) implementation
got that?
--
rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela
rn...@rncbc.org
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
