On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 19:47:26 -0500 Paul Davis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Johannes Kroll <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Could you elaborate please: why is compatibility between the existing > > session management systems a dumb idea? > > > you don't compatibility between DECnet and BITNET. you don't get > compatibility between english and chinese. what you get is a *new* > system/protocol/language. > > <ob-xkcd> > http://xkcd.com/927/ > </ob-xkcd> You and David do not understand what I'm proposing. My intention is not to create a new protocol. Creating another system because there are already too many would be indeed idiotic: that's what has been done before with the other session managers. I imagine creating *something* that makes the existing systems work together, *without* changing the clients that use the existing systems. I.e. one app may be thinking it's talking to non-session, one app speaks ladish, another thinks it's talking to jack-session, but in reality they all talk to one session manager which implements all 3 (4... 7... umpteen) protocols. I have not looked at the implementations of the existing systems. Maybe what I'm proposing is not easily possible. In any case, I want you to understand that I'm not proposing to increase the number of systems in order to decrease the number of systems. That would be, indeed, dumb in a painfully obvious way. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
